David Cameron 9/11 ''Twin Towers blown up"

reply to post by Danbones


probabl;y because your the only one who thinks he's made a boo boo. most English people will hear it and think "yes the planes blew up the towers" as they take another sip of tea.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

 

prove he didn't Mean "Blown Up"

he did. Blown up. as in, an explosion destroyed the building. How are you reading so far in to this? an explosion blows up weather or not it is intentional. Not everybody is out to get you.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

reply to post by woodwardjnr



maybe he ment exactly like he said:

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of dust taken from blocks away.

They claim their analysis has uncovered "active thermitic material": a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in a form of thermite known as "nanostructured super-thermite."

Thermite, used in steel welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition, can produce a chemical reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time.

According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services."

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," said Jones in a media advisory. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

"The cost and production rate of super-thermite composites has limited the use of these materials in DoD applications," claims the Navy's SBIR.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, a former physicist at Brigham Young University and a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, presented a paper in 2005 discussing alternatives to the government's theory that massive structural damage combined with burning jet fuel to weaken the towers' support infrastructure, causing a rapid "pancake" collapse.

In September 2006, under heavy criticism in the media and by several colleagues, the university placed Jones on paid administrative leave and his paper was removed from the BYU database.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the WTC tower collapses, maintains there was no recovered evidence of explosive materials. An electronic FAQ to the government's theory is available online.

"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."

"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," reads the NIST FAQ.

"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day," NIST says. "Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel."

"No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001," the agency claims.

This latest report, Jones told Visibility 9/11, "explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings. The red/gray chips are the 'loaded gun' of 9-11."

rawstory.com...



[edit on 13-6-2010 by Danbones]

now your turn
put up or shut up

"BLOWN UP"
doesn't mean the same as "COLLAPSED"

you'll have to come up with more than empty semantics to counter all this agreement with the title

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (STJ) formed in January 2007 and is "a group of scholars and supporters endeavoring to address the unanswered questions of the September 11, 2001 attack" with a focus on scientific research. The group is composed of more than 700 members,[97] including Richard Gage, Steven E. Jones, Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin, Peter Phillips, former Congressman Daniel Hamburg, and Kevin Ryan. Most members support the theory that the World Trade Center Towers were destroyed through explosive demolition.

In 2008 and 2009, several Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members published essays in science and engineering journals. In April 2008, a letter by members Steven E. Jones, Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Anthony Szamboti and James Gourley, was published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal.[98] In July 2008, an article by Ryan, Gourley and Jones was published in the Environmentalist.[99] In October 2008, an essay describing what the author considers fundamental errors in a Bažant and Verdure paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by member James R. Gourley.[100] And in April 2009, as reported by major Danish newspapers,[101] Danish chemist and STJ member Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and eight other authors, some also STJ members, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.[102] The paper concludes that chips consisting of unreacted and partially reacted super-thermite, or nano-thermite, are present in the samples of the dust.

en.wikipedia.org...

fema uses
THE WORD "COLLAPSE"
don't take my word for it
I'll let you read it for your selves
note the "OFFICIAL " version leaves a little something out
like half the internal structure
oooopsie


FEMA: What Core Columns? NEXT >>

Wishing Away the Core Structures
911research.wtc7.net...

They substitute service core for core structure to help the reader think the buildings were flimsy:

A rectangular service core with overall dimensions of approximately 87 feet by 137 feet, was present at the center of each building, housing 3 exit stairways, 99 elevators, and 16 escalators.

The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south.
The Report is illustrated with many colorful cartoon-like drawings, such as one explaining FEMA's postulated floor collapse mechanism. It seems crafted to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the Towers had no core structures
Deceptive illustrations imply that the towers had no core columns.

FEMA's core fraud became accepted fact.
The New York Times reported in May 2004:

The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped.

page 34 Copyright 2003-2007 911research.wtc7.net >

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

maybe he ment exactly like he said:

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC)."

The study, however, shows that the dust was collected from four different sites, three of which were not in the immediate area surrounding the fallen towers. Most of the samples are collections of dust taken from blocks away.

They claim their analysis has uncovered "active thermitic material": a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in a form of thermite known as "nanostructured super-thermite."

Thermite, used in steel welding, fireworks shows, hand grenades and demolition, can produce a chemical reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time.

According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services."

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," said Jones in a media advisory. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

"The cost and production rate of super-thermite composites has limited the use of these materials in DoD applications," claims the Navy's SBIR.

Dr. Steven E. Jones, a former physicist at Brigham Young University and a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, presented a paper in 2005 discussing alternatives to the government's theory that massive structural damage combined with burning jet fuel to weaken the towers' support infrastructure, causing a rapid "pancake" collapse.

In September 2006, under heavy criticism in the media and by several colleagues, the university placed Jones on paid administrative leave and his paper was removed from the BYU database.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which investigated the WTC tower collapses, maintains there was no recovered evidence of explosive materials. An electronic FAQ to the government's theory is available online.

"We get a lot of calls from people who have heard these theories," NIST spokesman Michael Newman told Newsday. "But we conducted what was probably the most complex investigation of a building collapse in history."

"We based our conclusion on the talents of the world's best engineers and scientists, state of the art computer models and 236 pieces of steel recovered from the site," reads the NIST FAQ.

"The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day," NIST says. "Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel."

"No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001," the agency claims.

This latest report, Jones told Visibility 9/11, "explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings. The red/gray chips are the 'loaded gun' of 9-11."

rawstory.com...



[edit on 13-6-2010 by Danbones]

Ok. Just because theres "evidence" of a controlled demolition doesnt mean that david cameron knew this the day the towers fell. Your using random, widely discussed information to support your theory that david cameron, in saying "blew up", had inside knowledge of that days events.

If he really knew, and really slipped up, and really meant exactly what he said, why did he not say "controlled demolition" instead of "blew up". Blew up is a term used when something explodes. Planes, buildings, whatever. If you want to be really literal, you could say that the building never blew up at all because that would mean the entire building blew up like a cherry bomb.

Weather or not is was demolished or fell naturally, "blow up" is perfectly reasonable terminology considering nobody knew what the hell was going on on that day, never mind exactly what to call a burning, blowing up collapsing building.

logic goes a long way. trivial facts do not contribute in any way to your weak theory about david cameron. If anyone is relying on semantics to support their wild interpretation, its you. "blew up". wow.... not much to go on there eh

[edit on 13-6-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Now to begin I do not accept the official story to the events of 911...

because they were blown up, Cameron believes the planes blew them up. I cant see why people cant get this. Anyway I'll leave you to chew over his words and come up with a good conspiracy based on your interpretation of the term "Blow up"

Planes are not explosives! Jet fuel is not explosive, Therefore mentioning the buildings were blown up is a major screw up!

Now again, The Official Story states the planes hit the towers there was impact explosions from the jet fuel. Then fires burned, thus weakening, the steel and the buildings collapsed. (Per the government not me)

And as you said I can't see why people can't get this,There is no mention of explosions with the official story,. In fact they try their best to dis info all allegations that any explosions happen at all other than the impact of the aircraft!

Simple logic, you can't rewrite the story to make his words not mean anything.

the top british commander just publically stated that the war in afgahistan is unwinable

I am wondering if after the american BP row that they are not distancing themselves from America?

War in Afghanistan cannot be won, British commander Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith warns
The war in Afghanistan cannot be won, Britain's most senior military commander in the country has warned.

www.telegraph.co.uk... ns.html

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


I quoted the FEMA report collapsed is their term

show me an official explanation where the term 'Blown UP" occurs to support YOUR point please



[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


hey I just tried that link and the page is down???

You might have another link I am intrigued to read that article.

As for the thread you have here I agree with you, there is no use of blown up by anything or anyone regarding the WTC collapses.

Those who try to wiggle their way by saying the planes blew them up have no foundation on which to move. Good find!

reply to post by Danbones

hey remember that bit about Iraqis pulling babies out of incubators in Quwait and it turned out the witness was the daughter of a guy who owned a PR firm that was paid millions to help discredit Iraq?
oooopsie
no WMD
either

The famous incubator babies and the UN council meeting with the Kuwaiti leader daughter was giving the speech instructed by the CIA to lie about this, sick sick sick for them to lie about such stuff.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

 

I quoted the FEMA report collapsed is their term

show me an official explanation where the term 'Blown UP" occurs to support YOUR point please



[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

Is david cameron fema? was what he said documented as an official explenation?

If it were me, i would say they blew up too. Not because im behind a conspiracy, but because when things erupt in flame and debris the common interpretation is that that thing "blew up".

or you could take this random snippet, taken completely out of context, to support your idea. Why should david cameron be completely bound to explain exactly what happened. As far as any regular observer is concerned (those that would have been listening to him...)

"bin laden blew up the towers".

How much more simple does it get? do we need to scrutinize exactly how to describe the events of that day? You have proof of nothing here, other then proof that david cameron might be a terrible speech writer.

again, not everything said by the higher ups is intended to be archived, documented and taken word for word literally. We live in a world where the audience is everything.

his audience that day = regular people watching the news that take "blown up" exactly as it was intended.

this audience = believe nothing. everything is suspicious. Take everything literally as long as it fits your worldview.



have you seen the video where, ya know... those planes hit the towers? they look pretty damn blown up to me, as well as everyone else. regardless of the official story, those towers went BOOM (in a blowey-up kinda way)

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

reply to post by theability


scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, said it was necessary to "lower our expectations". He added that the challenge was about reducing the conflict to a manageable level of insurgency that is not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.

he said this a while ago but that just means its public knowledge
the voters would know this too and they are wondering about the whole mess



[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


thanks for backing it up with provable facts Spacey
I guess thats why no one is quoting you



[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

Britons question reasons for Afghan conflict: poll
(AFP) – Nov 11, 2009

www.google.com...

LONDON — Nearly half of Britons think the military campaign in Afghanistan is actually increasing the threat of a terrorist attack on home soil, a poll said Wednesday, amid rising public criticism of the war.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government and military leaders have argued that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan will help reduce the risk of an attack by extremists in the region against Britain and other Western countries.

But only 21 percent surveyed supported that view, while 46 percent said the conflict was in fact increasing the threat by creating anger and resentment among the Muslim population, according to the GFK NOP poll.

www.jwharrison.com...
(2008)
Who Was Behind 9/11? People in 17 Countries Respond
On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.

“Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them,” comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

Even in European countries, the majorities that say al Qaeda was behind 9/11 are not overwhelming. Fifty-seven percent of Britons, 56 percent of Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans cite al Qaeda.” However, significant portions of Britons (26%), French (23%), and Italians (21%) say they do not know who was behind 9/11. Remarkably, 23 percent of Germans cite the US government, as do 15 percent of Italians.





[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

 

thanks for backing it up with provable facts Spacey
I guess thats why no one is quoting you

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

provable facts? your link is a youtube video, and your "provable facts" are official testimony from fema and 911 official story disbeleivers. Let me know when something tangible comes up that indicates david cameron has inside information on 9/11 other then him saying the phrase "blew up"

....but, of course, nothing like that exists anywhere ever because all david cameron knows is that something "blew up".

You can take shots at me, but your fairy tale still sucks

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


FEMA (collapse) is a 911 disbeliever....?
not to
mention FEMA left the central structure out of their theory
while the 911 "disbelievers" have it in their peer reviewed PHYSICS dissertation....



6 out of 1o 911 commisioners declaired the investigation to be a fraud....


[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by SPACEYstranger

 

FEMA (collapse) is a 911 disbeliever....?
not to
mention FEMA left the central structure out of their theory
while the 911 "disbelievers" have it in their peer reviewed PHYSICS dissertation....

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Danbones]

right.... now what about david cameron? Where does he fit in to any of that? What was the point in bringing either of those things up in the first place, again?

... or right! because since there is doubt about the official story, we can automatically scrutinize everything that is said with regard to it no matter how trivial. Since fema lied, and the disbeleivers are right, then david cameron saying "blew up" must mean he has inside knowlege!

Man, serious mis steps in logic there. What other crazy horsecrap do you believe by stringing together completely random conjecture?


edit: ooook, so since 9/11 commissioners think its a fraud.... david cameron saying "blew up" means hes in the know?

is it just me, or do you have no idea what your trying to argue any more? If you do, please let me know.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by SPACEYstranger]

I'm saying David Cameron told the truth
for a change...
you are saying he didn't
I'm saying prove your point
which could only be that he didn't tell the truth