This is a great find! OP s&f for you.There you have it an actual experiment and the thermal expansion theory falls apart and all the "debunkers." can do is appeal to emotions and only talk about the towers when it comes to the members of the commission,Shankesville and WTC#7 and the pentagon they become oddly silent.

All you people that say no to micro nukes NEVER even looked at all the evidence. I don't CARE if you were there! If you would have looked at the evidence you would have seen that it doesn't produce any mushroom cloud at ground level because it was buried UNDER the structure as was the patent that CDI got for it. Again, don't spout off until you look at the evidence because it's just ridiculous. The micro nukes would have been 10 stories under the foundations and were DESIGNED to NEVER break through the ground. We're not talking about regular nukes here, these are designed to take down buildings AND that was the original demolition plan for all (3) buildings! Very small, 150kT special warheads. This was the plan for those buildings all along because of their super rigid structures couldn't be safely taken down by high explosives in the building footprint.

Again, look at the evidence and watch all the evidence that Dimitri Khalezov has before you say that it CAN'T be because until you know how the technology works, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nothing else turns steel to DUST! High Explosives doesn't do it and Thermate and Thermite can't do it, so that means that it had to be something else involved. Beam weapons are possible but why go after a beam weapon theory when there is TONS of evidence for the micro nuke.

Again, go look at this page and ALL the evidence and tell me how a beam weapon causes Tritium levels to go to 55 times normal! Only a nuke of some type would do that and that was the ORIGINAL plan as Dimitri heard as a member of the Soviet nuclear forces in the 70's! In fact, they got a BIG chuckle out of the crazy Americans wanting to demolish the Twin towers someday with a micro nuke because our government had to FILE that plan with the Russians as that was protocol for either super power to use their demolition nukes!

It's funny how these people that cry "no micro nukes" post madly how it can't be but NEVER address all of Dimitri's evidence. They don't even watch his videos.

For instance, one of the big lies of 911 was when our government gave all the workers "air quality" badges that were the same size as a nuclear radiation badge. They were flat cards as thin as credit card. They were EXACTLY the same size and thickness of a radiation badge except these badges were WHITE and unmarked! If they were really air quality badges then how come no company name on them? This is exactly the cover story they would have used. Again this radiation would have been very contained to the very center of the molten core so it would not kill you unless you got a very high dose and as they rotated people out they would have minimized it but I think this explains all the crazy cancers that came out of this.

Again if you would have looked at the evidence, a micro nuke designed to take down a building is carefully designed to pulverize all the material of the building to dust that is in the crush zone but it does that without ANY explosion because the nuke is buried. However since there were cracks and fissures and steam coming up, there was some radiation for a while before the molten material left behind cooled.

Still more evidence comes from the fact that they couldn't cool the area down fully until 6 months which is exactly how long it would take to cool off the molten material using every technology available. They were pulling molten steel out of the hole for months.

And finally, they didn't call it "Ground Zero" for nothing! Look it up in the dictionary and it will say "The area immediately above or below a NUCLEAR explosion. They put it right in your face. LOL

[edit on 19-8-2010 by projectnsearch]

This is a good video except that the steel girder should have been under load similar to what they were in the building. Putting another steel girder standing up in the middle of the tested girder and supporting the vertical one from the ends would probably have done it.

OK, this will not cause steel to melt holes in it, but might give us a clue how much exactly the temperatures affect the bending point of steel.

(OK OK this is exactly known theoretically, but replicating WTC conditions has not been done to my knowledge so in practice this is not yet demonstrated)

[edit on 19-8-2010 by boredsilly]

The towers fell because they were set up to fall. I have tried to get this across to the people that want to listen (I have given up trying to convince people who do not wish to listen). This video has been set up in order to bring the truth to the people in its short time of playing.

I thank YOUTUBE for not deleting it and I thank the OP for bringing this vital video to our attention.

The people who orchestrated this and killed thousands of innocent people will pay for their sins throughout their lives that I am positive of.

Not a peep from the sceptical minded people, thats a good thing surely?

S&F great find! More proof of the government science is a fraud.
This will anger the OS believers they can’t stand holes poke in their fairytales
They will scream impossible yet when we ask them to prove their opinions, we will only get insults. More in the line in what Jones found in his testing.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
they can’t stand holes poke in their fairytales

Except it is the truthers who have all the fairytales, pod carrying aircraft, hush a boom explosives, hologram aircraft, beam weapons and mini nukes - and they expect people to believe all their tall tales!

Originally posted by impressme
Most people do not believe in those ridiculous conspiracies, nice try in lumping ALL people who are inquiring about the truth.

Very true, most people know that 2 airliners hitting the buildings caused the collapse.

They are just as ridiculous as your conspiracy theory about 911

The problem with both sides of the 911 debate is that they each throw up wild theories and good ones presenting them as facts.

As soon as this tactic fails they (both sides) turn to personal attacks.

If you have to stop using logic to win the argument or shut the other side up you already lost.

There is no doubt that the offical story is lacking in a lot of detail and throws up more questions that it ever answered. Just that alone should be enough to continue the hunt for the real truth behind 911 for years to come.

I doubt we will know the truth in our life times and I would not mind if the offical version could be proven true at least then it would be the truth.

Until then anyone with a theory should present it as such and be willing to change the peramiters of the theroy when new information comes up (yes that goes for both sides as well)

Not only that if you are going to try and prove or disprove a theroy then you better bring good evidence and present it as such not just a tit for tat name calling until you beat the other side into submition.

Wow, just watched some of these videos. It is amazing what some people will pass off as an "experiment"! Putting a random I-beam in a bonfire with a little wallboard and somehow we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe that is related to the conditions on 9/11! They are kidding, right?

Do these people have any clue what constitutes and "experiment" as opposed to what we see here which would be more accuratley described as "backyard performance art"? Do you think they have any clue as to how or what science actually involves? 10 min videos of bonfires does not constitute an "experiment" unless the subject is bonfires!

Originally posted by hooper
Wow, just watched some of these videos. It is amazing what some people will pass off as an "experiment"! Putting a random I-beam in a bonfire with a little wallboard and somehow we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe that is related to the conditions on 9/11! They are kidding, right?

Do these people have any clue what constitutes and "experiment" as opposed to what we see here which would be more accuratley described as "backyard performance art"? Do you think they have any clue as to how or what science actually involves? 10 min videos of bonfires does not constitute an "experiment" unless the subject is bonfires!

Rudness will never win a debate or argument unless your tactic is just to beat other person into submition with noise.

This just relates exactly to my previous post about name calling and the general way people discount those looking for answer.

How about you show a rival experiment that meets your criteria of what a "real" experiment is to disprove or maybe amend the theory?

Maybe if you could show what you feel is the correct experiment showing the results expected to match the offical account of 911 we can actually get on with this debate and reach a concensus of what actually happened.

Until you do your or hell even my opinion counts for nothing and adds nothing constructive about the debate.

You critize the experiment without pointing out the flawes you feel are in it and you proved no counter arugment. Try again in a constructive manner and your input might actually help solve the debate.

This really goes for everyone it does not matter what side of the fence you think you are on, you will never contrabute to the discussion if you just go in for personal attacks.