PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by impressme


I can see by your extensive references that you really want Jones' theories to be correct. You believe him to be a credible scientist who is disinterested in the outcome of his research and that he published in a primary, peer reviewed journal. Many of the fringe journals claim to be peer reviewed but what they are is rubber stamped. The paper he published would not have been published in an actual journal without a complete rewrite and extensive reanalysis of the materials.
This paper is inconclusive and his promised second paper, correcting the errors of the first, has yet to be seen. The data that he presents in the Bentham paper is self-contradictory and invalidates his claims. Then, there is the practical aspect. If the material was so energetic, why didn't it all burn when lit with an oxy torch? Why did it go out?
I have explained the paper's faults on many occasions but will detail them for you again if you have a specific question about some aspect of the paper or my criticsms that you don't understand.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by iamcpc

 

Answers to your questions.

1. Nobody knows what kind of explosives were used at WTC 7. I know there were explosions heard before the building collapsed as well as during the collapse. The seismic evidence you have posted shows the sound of the building collapsing. If we could compare that to other controlled demolition seismic readings there might be something to discuss. But as you state yourself, other people use the seismic graph as evidence in either direction of this discussion. This usually means it's not evidence for anything.

2. WTC 7 could have been demolished using non-conventional explosive techniques. The existence of thermite points in this direction.

3. I don't know why this continues to be a question. Demolition crews didn't rig WTC 7 on September 11th. If they did, I'm very impressed. The building would have been rigged beforehand, probably a month, as you stated.

4. WTC 7 collapsed in the late afternoon. I don't know why it wasn't still being covered like the towers. Probably because the building wasn't hit by an airplane and didn't show any signs of danger. Why were news outlets reporting that the building had collapsed even though it was still standing?

5. See above.

6. What "facts" are you referring to?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

1. In order for someone to adopt the theory that WTC was demolished with explosives I need to know exactly what kind of explosives were used.
I watched several videos of the collapse and i heard the building collapse but no explosions.

2. I have to research thermite. I know the mythbusters tried to cut a car made mostly of aluminum in half with thermite and it didn't work so well. Thermite could have heated WTC7 steel to the point of failure but fire can heat steel too.

3. It continues to be a question because in order to make a very large claim (like there is a goverment coverup of 9/11 or that the goverment kill the New York Fire department) I need to know how. How on earth did our bumbling half retarded goverment who is doing such a horrible job in the wars it already has able to pull this off. How can someone be so sure that the demolition theroies are true and the nist reports are not without answering the question "HOW?"

4. The news reports of the building collapsing is very suspicious and that's a point that can't go refuted.




My questions

1. What video did you watch of the WTC7 collapse that you can hear explosions?

2. Has a building ever been demolished with thermite? I tried researching it but i'm having trouble.

3. Did thermite cut through the steel or just heat it?

4. How come every video I watched of the WTC7 collapse I didn't hear any explosions if so many people claim to have heard explosions?

5. What would have happened if the twin towers had collapsed in a way that they did not cause damage and set fire to WTC7? Would the orginization responsible for its demolition have demolished a building that had no damage and no fire? How could the orginization responsible for its demolition have perfectly planned that it would be damaged in a way from falling debris from the twin towers to be able to cause experts to both refute and agree with the nist reports?

I'm constantly coming up with questions that no one else seems to care to answer or does not even want to answer.

Originally posted by pteridine
his promised second paper, correcting the errors of the first, has yet to be seen.

We heard a lot about this at the time.

Do any Truth Movement people know where it is? I believe some of you were in contact with Jones around the time he made this claim.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

These are your opinions only.

They are not backed up buy the facts.

Sorry to tell you this, but these are not all my “opinions” I posted sources.

What have you contributed to this thread, eh? Certainly not proof to support your OS.

reply to post by pteridine

I can see by your extensive references that you really want Jones' theories to be correct.

Want has nothing to do with it. It is proven science that Jones published and despite your beliefs, I am sorry to tell you, science beats your opinions.

You believe him to be a credible scientist who is disinterested in the outcome of his research

To make such damming comments tells me that you are desperate to damage the reputation of Steven Jones. Further, it is clear; your goal is to discredit Jones’ work by any means possible, even by inventing garbage as you just did.

Show me where Steven Jones has said that he is “disinterested” in his own research.

Many of the fringe journals claim to be peer reviewed but what they are is rubber stamped

The paper he published would not have been published in an actual journal without a complete rewrite and extensive reanalysis of the materials.

Once again, you have managed to invent supposed “facts” about Jones. The only thing that seems to be rubber-stamped is your animosity towards Jones. His work on nano thermite found in NYC is valid, accepted science, and not one scientist has proven Jones wrong. Your opinion is not fact and is contrary to the truth.

This paper is inconclusive

Who said that Jones’ paper is [color=gold]inconclusive? I asked you this question several posts above. You still have not answered, but you have continued making up garbage about Jones and his work without showing any evidence or sources.

Bentham paper is self-contradictory and invalidates his claims.

This is your opinion and it is untrue.
Where is your proof?

If the material was so energetic, why didn't it all burn when lit with an oxy torch? Why did it go out?

Obviously you know little or nothing about Thermite much less nano Thermite / nano Thermate. It may be of some value to you and other readers to research these materials and how often they are used by countless commercial businesses and the Military.

I have explained the paper's faults on many occasions but will detail them for you again if you have a specific question about some aspect of the paper or my criticsms that you don't understand.

If I want an opinion, I would get it from scientists who are experts in the field of nano Thermite & nano Thermate, not from someone who has no experience in such fields and shows such animosity toward Professor Steven Jones and his work.

reply to post by impressme

Obviously you know little or nothing about Thermite much less nano Thermite / nano Thermate. It may be of some value to you and other readers to research these materials and how often they are used by countless commercial businesses and the Military.

Ah and you have done research? So please, show us all just how many sucessful demolitions of buildings have been done with thermite being used in the majority of the demolition work? Just a ballpark figure. Or an example? Just one example of a large building that had thermite bring it down sucessfully. Ok ok I'll make it easier, give us a respectable company that does large scale demolition with thermite. Not any thermite cutters, or magic thermite laced explosives, but ones that paint thermite on the beams in thin thin thin layers and somehow magically set them off. Just one. Please. All I ask. Oh and also, the military, yes they use thermite grenades to disable vehicals, cannons, destroy documents, aircraft.... no I dont see bringing down buildings. Oh but they do have high power explosives which include thermitic materials, but I fail to see how these can leave "chips" of magic thermite laying around, and self-extinguish when a source of flame is removed. What the heck kind of thermite is that?

If I want an opinion, I would get it from scientists who are experts in the field of nano Thermite & nano Thermate, not from someone who has no experience in such fields and shows such animosity toward Professor Steven Jones and his work.

So "Dr." Jones is now an expert in thermites and nano-thermites? *ahem* Let me just wipe my tears from laughing.

Boy oh boy. What surprises me is that this "expert" failed to do the most basic test in trying to find evidence of any sort of thermite. BURNING IT IN ZERO OXYGEN. What the heck kind of an expert forgets the most BASIC test? Geeze louieez! He burns it in air, of all things, and is amazied that it burns! But here is the problem! It burned at too high of any energy output for a thermite. In fact what was being shown was combustion in AIR. Oxygen! Things burn in oxygen. Thermite does not need oxygen. Jones over there forgot! And then he made a BS excuse of why he FORGOT to do the said test IN ZERO OXYGEN.

Hell when I was in geology, if we wanted to know wether a mineral was a carbonate, we knew immediately to test it with a dilute hydrochloric acid to see if it efferveces. If it did we had a 99.99% chance of it being a carbonate mineral for sure. And THAT is just basics! Thermite is known to burn in a zero oxygen environment because it creates its own. Ergo THAT should have been the FIRST test done. Period. NO excuses for not doing it. And what the hell is Jones waiting for? Its been years since his "paper" and he said he was going to do a better test, what is taking so long? What is so hard to take his sample and burn it in ZERO oxygen? Methinks he made a boo boo. The "expert" has failed, big time! Oh and since when does thermite self-extinguish after it is lit but has the flame removed, leaving behind large amounts of unburned thermite laying around in "chip" form? Geeze, thats TWO red flags that show Jones has no clue what he is doing, and yet you think his "paper" is gold?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

You believe him to be a credible scientist who is disinterested in the outcome of his research

To make such damming comments tells me that you are desperate to damage the reputation of Steven Jones. Further, it is clear; your goal is to discredit Jones’ work by any means possible, even by inventing garbage as you just did.

Show me where Steven Jones has said that he is “disinterested” in his own research.

Many of the fringe journals claim to be peer reviewed but what they are is rubber stamped

The paper he published would not have been published in an actual journal without a complete rewrite and extensive reanalysis of the materials.

His work on nano thermite found in NYC is valid, accepted science, and not one scientist has proven Jones wrong. Your opinion is not fact and is contrary to the truth.

This paper is inconclusive

Who said that Jones’ paper is [color=gold]inconclusive?

Bentham paper is self-contradictory and invalidates his claims.

This is your opinion and it is untrue.
Where is your proof?

If the material was so energetic, why didn't it all burn when lit with an oxy torch? Why did it go out?

Obviously you know little or nothing about Thermite much less nano Thermite / nano Thermate. It may be of some value to you and other readers to research these materials and how often they are used by countless commercial businesses and the Military.

I have explained the paper's faults on many occasions but will detail them for you again if you have a specific question about some aspect of the paper or my criticsms that you don't understand.

If I want an opinion, I would get it from scientists who are experts in the field of nano Thermite & nano Thermate, not from someone who has no experience in such fields and shows such animosity toward Professor Steven Jones and his work.

1. All scientists are supposed to be disinterested. That does not mean uninterested, it means having no financial or other interest in the outcome.
2. Jones' paper is not 'accepted science,' his work is inconclusive, and most scientists ignore him. I have said his work is inconclusve and I have shown that it is, many times. The proof that you ask for is within his own paper. He has admitted it and that is why he promised a second paper.
3. When I asked "If the material was so energetic, why didn't it all burn when lit with an oxy torch? Why did it go out?" You didn't answer. You said that obviously I know nothing about nanothermitic materials. How would you know what my experience is or what I have done for a living for many years? Did you ever notice that I sometimes reference books like M.A. Cook's "The Science of High Explosives" or "The Behavior of Metals Under Impulsive Loads" and use words like thermohydrodynamics? Why do you think that is?
4. Nano thermite is not used by industry. It is expensive and not easy to make. There is no advantage to it in industrial appplications. It doesn't look like red paint.
5. In case you hadn't noticed, Steve is a physicist and it is painfully obvious that he is not a chemist. He is out of his depth in the Bentham paper and it shows. He proved that dried red paint chips burn in air. When he lit a chip with an oxy torch, he saw a spark and then what happened? The chip went out. Did you ever light thermite? It is tough to ignite, which is why an ignitor mix is often used, but when it starts, it doesn't stop. This goes double for any nano thermite. Did the red paint stop burning or did it behave like a "highly engineered" nano-thermite?

reply to post by pteridine

Well we just got home from Wal-Mart and tried our own experiments with the store brand of nano Thermite. I know mom said not to play with matches so we used a Bic lighter instead. OK, here’s what happened.

#1. Lit one ¼ th teaspoon nano Thermite with Bic.
Melted the spoon but didn’t hurt the house.

#2. Lit one ¼ th teaspoon nano Thermite with Bic.
This time we wrapped the spoon with duct tape.
Not much different this time.

#3. Lit one ¼ th teaspoon nano Thermite with Bic.
This time was same as #1 but we borrowed Nana’s
Portable oxygen pack and set it on highest flow.
Let me tell you. Not only did the spoon melt, poor Nana
now resides in a nursing home and pop is looking for a new house for us.

Conclusion: That nano Thermite stuff, even the store brand, is some bad s**t!

When you answer questions or challenge statments try using facts with credible sources and not opinions.

So far, no credible scientist has proven Jones to be wrong. Nano Thermite (as opposed to common thermite) was unquestionably used in the 911 events at the WTC.

reply to post by impressme



How do you know that nanothermite was used? Do you have any evidence of production of necessary amounts by 9/11/2001? Do you have any evidence that any of it was produced to look like red paint? Can you explain how much was used and if ten tons [Jones estimate] of highly engineered, nanothermite disguised as red paint was unburned in the dust what part of the demolition didn't occur?
Remember: "When you answer questions or challenge statments try using facts with credible sources and not opinions." I expect to see credible sources for all. Jones paper cannot be used, as it is what is contested.

reply to post by pteridine

How do you know that nanothermite was used?

How do you know it wasn’t? Please show proof.

Do you have any evidence of production of necessary amounts by 9/11/2001?

Show your proof that enough was not produced in time for 911.

Do you have any evidence that any of it was produced to look like red paint?

Show which examples you are using as evidence.

Can you explain how much was used and if ten tons [Jones estimate] of highly engineered, nanothermite disguised as red paint was unburned in the dust what part of the demolition didn't occur?

Explain how much nano thermite was not disguised as red paint and was burned in the the demolition. Also, show evidence proving the amount of unburned nano Thermite that remained in the dust.

Remember: "When you answer questions or challenge statements try using facts with credible sources and not opinions." I expect to see credible sources for all. Do not forget, Jones’ paper cannot be used, as it is what is contested.


Time to move on. More and more people are discovering the OS was nothing but a pack of lies. If you think supporting the OS is being patriotic, think again. If you want to believe that office, fires brought down all three WTC and turned all the concrete into a fine powder, that’s your right.

reply to post by impressme


As I thought. I knew you had nothing. Aside from your "proving a negative" logical fallacies, I see you have no evidence of nanothermite, death rays from space, reptilian plotters, or anything else. You just have your opinions based on the opinions of others.

The entire truth movement is a closed circle with the same supporters praying at the altars of their various websites. You will cry for reinvestigation for the next 50 years and will get none, due to lack of cause. There is no proof of demolition, there is only proof of wishful thinking.

I am not a supporter of the OS, as you claim. I am disinterested [Did you look it up yet? Build that vocabulary.] and look only at the evidence. The preponderance of evidence says no physical conspiracy, which many can't accept.

Likely, the people that botched the investigations are covering up and that is where you will find a conspiracy of silence. Missiles, holograms, thermite, and everything else are nonsense placed out there for everyone to argue about while the real conspiracy of silence goes unnoticed. Videos are allowed to exist so people can argue about them. Do you think that anyone who was good enough to execute the Rube Goldberg plans that are claimed would let a bunch of armchair sleuths find their secrets on you tube? I am more and more convinced that some of the truthers are disinformation agents that stir the pot whenever things calm down.

If you want to do conspiracy research that is more than flitting from truther site to truther site, start looking at what happened to the people in the upper levels of the agencies that ignored their own agents' warnings.

reply to post by pteridine


I have to say pteridine, it always amazed me how anyone would think that such a Rube-Goldberg complication on such a magnitude would fool all the professionals but not a bunch of armchair google/youtube sleuths that only need grainy pictures and videos to disprove the whole thing.

Heh, I mean when you actually step back and take a good look at the TM's claims, it really makes you wonder how the hell that would work out with such convoluted schemes. Can I ask you a question? Which is easier to do and most fool-proof?
A) Taking a real airliner and crashing into the Pentagon/WTCs/field in Shanksville, and then reporting it as such or;
B) Faking the plane crashes with no planes, some planes, planting thousands of false witnesses, having firefighters, demolition people, news media, police, FAA, CIA, FBI, NSA, foregin intelligence agencies, first responders, emergency personnel, NTSB, among others all working together to LIE and fake evidence, intel, etc etc etc, and also planting explosives, magic thermites painted on, all working together in harmony and no slip ups to fake the biggest "terror" attack ever? I mean COME ON!

reply to post by impressme


WAIT a doggone minute!!! WHAT???

Well we just got home from Wal-Mart and tried our own experiments with the store brand of nano Thermite.

Wal-Mart???

What? What, what?? Huh???

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pteridine

 

it always amazed me how anyone would think that such a Rube-Goldberg complication on such a magnitude would fool all the professionals

Do you have a source that says that all the professionals were fooled or is that 100% your un-expert opinion?

former physics professor of BYU
Steven Jones
(I would consider a physics professor an expert)

source: web.archive.org...://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

There are also so professionals on this website:

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

I would check your source that said that all the professionals were fooled. It's obviously not very reliable.


You also said:
2. Can I ask you a question? Which is easier to do and most fool-proof?

A) Taking a real airliner and crashing into the Pentagon/WTCs/field in Shanksville, and then reporting it as such or;
B) Faking the plane crashes with no planes, some planes, planting thousands of false witnesses, having firefighters, demolition people, news media, police, FAA, CIA, FBI, NSA, foregin intelligence agencies, first responders, emergency personnel, NTSB, among others all working together to LIE and fake evidence, intel, etc etc etc, and also planting explosives, magic thermites painted on, all working together in harmony and no slip ups to fake the biggest "terror" attack ever? I mean COME ON!

you forgot to include something in option B to include "successfully completing and covering one of the (if not the) worlds largest demolition project, in occupied buildings, in New York City, without anyone knowing"

reply to post by iamcpc


1. You can't know everything. What is the DNA encoding of the terrorists that hijacked the planes? What proof is there linking Osama Bin Laden?

2. I don't know what mythbusters you were watching, that car was cut through like butter, in a very short amount of time. Thermite heats to degress of 2800 degress F, which liquifies iron. Thermite cut right through the core columns of the WTC buildings.

In WTC 7, NIST admits that the fires did not reach temperatures above 700 degrees Celsius. WTC 7 was fireproofed and sprinklered and tested by the UI. WTC 7 is literally impossible. In my mind, anyone who swallows "thermal expansion" doesn't want to confront reality.

3. Our bumbling half retarded government is not where the buck stops. 9/11 is not an exclusively American event, in case you hadn't noticed. It set off simultaneous overseas Middle Eastern wars and is probably heading toward a global conflict. Who profits from this the most? Certainly not the U.S. Definitely not Osama Bin Laden. Do the math.

I could answer the question of how in my own way. On this particular forum, I don't think it's relevant. It's theory. We're not dealing in theories, we're dealing with proof.

If you must know, I believe the buildings were brought down with technologies far in advance of what is publicly available. Our own government admits that "above top secret" technologies are at least 10 years in advance of what is known. Nano-technology is not used in modern controlled demolitions. In order for the collapse to look like it was caused by a plane crash they would have to mask the controlled demolition.

This wasn't a completely U.S. project, that much is well known. The five Mossad agents that were arrested on September 11th with a van full of explosives, fake Arab passports, box cutters, and filming the event, is direct evidence of that. This attack was well known, far in advance, and may have been planned for decades. 9/11 is the birth of a world government. The current collapse of our financial system is an attempt to destroy the value of the global currencies in order to bring forward a one world currency, which will usher in a one world government. 9/11 was an entry in to the last region on Earth outside the global system, the rogue nations, which used to be Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, and Libya, now you can take Afghanistan and Iraq off that list. They have been engulfed by the New World Order.

Even IF 9/11 wasn't planned by people other than Osama Bin Laden it's being used to accomplish these ends. What motive would Osama Bin Laden have anyway? Because we export currency to Israel? Then why would he give us a reason to destroy his country and hand the reigns to the Middle East over to Israel? What would be the point of that? It's exactly the opposite of what someone who holds his world view would want.

Other questions...

1. There is a video online of firefighters walking away from WTC 7 saying "that building is going to come down" BOOM, BOOM. "It's coming down soon."

There is also plenty of eyewitness testimony, which you can take it or leave it, corroborating these claims, which I have posted here exhuastively.

2. I don't know.

3. Thermite would cut through steel.

4. The explosions I've heard, like the examples I posted above, were heard before the building collapsed. I'm pretty sure the building was demolished at the base, with thermite. The noise heard as the building falls is obscured by the actual collapse. Like I said before, I don't think common demolition techniques were utilized fro the destruction of these buildings.

An actual controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, watched WTC 7 fall and said it was a controlled demolition. That's a pretty good source I think. There's no other reasonable explanation. Thermal expansion might as well be quantum mechanics. It's total theory.

5. I don't know the answers to these questions. This is probably why no one else has answered them for you. Like I've said before. I'm not a secret agent. I don't know if flight 93 was supposed to hit this building. I don't know if they planned the towers to hit WTC 7.

WTC 7 was not really damaged by the WTC 1 and 2 debris anyway. That's why it's so ridiculous. What would have happened, is exactly what did happen. They demolished it, under impossible circumstances, and people like you believe your government for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. The fires were so minimal that a child would have survived inside those buildings. I'm not sure what you're asking. That's the whole point of the WTC 7 problem. The damage to the building was not substantial enough for it to fall, nor were the fires.

What other constant questions do you have? I'll answer them.

reply to post by iamcpc


B) This scenario is silly. Thousands of witnesses, hundreds of government agencies, all in on it.

That's not how these things go down. Government is a top down operation. So is the military. Workers act on a need to know basis. The only way the CIA can exist is by operating in secret. People in the FAA don't know what's going on, that's why they're calling NORAD and asking if the reports of planes crashing into buildings are real world or tests.

What first responders, firefighters, etc are lying? What false witnesses? Where are these demolition people? What are you talking about? It's ridiculous.

There didn't need to be that many people involved. This is extremely obvious. GlenRadek makes claims like this because he knows it's hot air that he can easily refute. If you make up your opponent's position you can easily argue it, it's called a "straw man" argument. It's a classic tactic of the weak minded and the emotionally controlled.

How did the Nazis burn down their own Reichstag building and keep it secret?

Look back through history. You might learn something.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I, too, have seen the 'MythBusters' segment.

You have some very odd recollections, though:

2. I don't know what mythbusters you were watching, that car was cut through like butter, in a very short amount of time.

Would you care to re-visit that segment, and watch again? Pay particular attention to the AMOUNT of thermite they used, on ONE Sport Utility Vehicle roof.....

As to the "very short amount of time"....ever hear of video editing? For time, like....because it's boring to sit there and show the audience something happening for the full 18 minutes (or whatever)?

Thermite heats to degress of 2800 degress F...

Sure...so?

Thermite cut right through the core columns of the WTC buildings.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly is a "column"? To my way of thinking, it is a VERTICAL structural member.

On "MythBusters" they put hundreds of pounds of thermite ON TOP OF the car roof. Gravity held it in place.

Tell us, HOW do you support something that melts steel, at 2800 F, against the force of gravity, and keep it up against the side of a VERTICAL column???? AND, make this stuff 'burn' horizontally, to "cut" that same column. AND, do this however hundreds of times, timed precisely to be at the SAME time????

Inquiring minds wish to know....

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Can you please give me a reliable source for your assertion that " five mossad agents with a van full of explosives, fake arab passports and box cutters " were arrested in New York on 9/11. Reason I ask is that NYPD are unable to confirm these allegations.

So far as your suggestion that UA 93 may have been intended to hit WTC 7 as cover for its controlled demolition ; why was it heading for Washington when it came down ? having started in New York ? !!

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pteridine

 

it always amazed me how anyone would think that such a Rube-Goldberg complication on such a magnitude would fool all the professionals

Do you have a source that says that all the professionals were fooled or is that 100% your un-expert opinion?

former physics professor of BYU
Steven Jones
(I would consider a physics professor an expert)

source: web.archive.org...://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

There are also so professionals on this website:

www.patriotsquestion911.com...

I would check your source that said that all the professionals were fooled. It's obviously not very reliable.

Well, you are correct on that, however, they are not "questioning" from their own perspective, but rather, regurgitating the same nonsense from the BS the TM sites push. And yes, even SOME professionals can be fooled, or are succeptable to such deception, or are basing their "opinion" or "views" on skewed, false, manipulated information. That has been shown before and the TM has always been giving 1/2 or even 1/8 of the facts, in the hopes to fool the readers.
Also, many of these "professionals" are NOT well versed in the particular specifics unique to 9/11. For example, what does an EMT know about structural engineerg? What does a retired US Army General know about aircraft crashes and fire sciences (this from the site:

When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know?

www.patriotsquestion911.com... ) Who said the structure melted? You see? False assumptions based on poor knowledge of the situation or FALSE information that was supplied, (by whom in this case? The TM). This would be the equivalent of asking a heart surgeon what does he think about the O-ring failure on the Space Shuttle Challenger, and why and how it failed. Just cause you are a well known, respected member of society, or have some specialty or specific ability, does not make you an expert preofessional in other fields, IE a brain surgeon building a rocket, and a rocket scientist doing brain surgery. Both are professionals! Just who is qualified for which job?

You also said:
2. Can I ask you a question? Which is easier to do and most fool-proof?

A) Taking a real airliner and crashing into the Pentagon/WTCs/field in Shanksville, and then reporting it as such or;
B) Faking the plane crashes with no planes, some planes, planting thousands of false witnesses, having firefighters, demolition people, news media, police, FAA, CIA, FBI, NSA, foregin intelligence agencies, first responders, emergency personnel, NTSB, among others all working together to LIE and fake evidence, intel, etc etc etc, and also planting explosives, magic thermites painted on, all working together in harmony and no slip ups to fake the biggest "terror" attack ever? I mean COME ON!

you forgot to include something in option B to include "successfully completing and covering one of the (if not the) worlds largest demolition project, in occupied buildings, in New York City, without anyone knowing"

Ah good eye my friend, I'll make sure to add that the next time!

2. I don't know what mythbusters you were watching, that car was cut through like butter, in a very short amount of time. Thermite heats to degress of 2800 degress F, which liquifies iron. Thermite cut right through the core columns of the WTC buildings.


i was watching this one www.youtube.com...

after a LOT of thermite and a lot of burning and flames the end result was no car cut in half.

What video did you see where thermite cut through an aluminum car like a hot knife through butter? If thermite can't cut through aluminum very well then is there a source that says it can cut through steel?