reply to post by Varemia
Well, if it can't be identified conventionally, then how can anyone identify it as being used?
What do you mean by "identified conventionally"? It can be identified after the fact by the traces it leaves behind.
The way you're talking, the argument is that "if you can't see it, then it's there in a form that you've never seen before."
No, you have it backwards. Just because it isn't anything that you personally haven't seen before, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. By saying
that thermite was used, you aren't necessarily saying that Thermate was used. While Thermate is thermite, thermite isn't necessarily Thermate. There
are other thermitic applications, mostly newer and all military.
Different applications of thermite, particularly the advanced engineered types, have all different reactive properties, though they all contain a
metal powder and metal oxide, so identifying thermite after the fact should all be the same, though observations of the reactions wouldn't.
It's like water. You can steam vegitables or boil vegitables, which both cook the food differently, though it is still water cooking the food and
scientific analysis would show that water is what cooked the vegitables. However, to an observer who may not be familiar with steam, it wouldn't
appear that the water is cooking the food because the only way s/he knows about cooking food with water, is by boiling. If there was a question about
how the food was cooked, this observer would refute that water was used, simply because he watched it happen and none of the traditional signs of
boiling water were present in the pan.
Multiply that on a much larger scale and you have the same people doing that with this incident. Now, irrespective of whether thermite was used, it is
rediculous to argue that it wasn't based on the reactive behaviors or traditional applications of Thermate.
That's a very observable event. We can determine with fair certainty that the planes entered the building, exploded, and caused many fires on
many floors. We cannot determine the use of explosives or experimental thermite without speculating severely.
Well, there is a problem with your premise, seeing that not all of the sky scrapers that fell, were hit by airplanes. So yes, airplanes hit two towers
but is that reason why they fell and more importantly, is that the reason why they fell in the manner in which they did? Do the two aircraft explain
the wealth of evidence, whether it be eye-witness or the collapse sequence of the buildings (all three)? Can an airplane even knock a building down
just by flying into it? I don't know and you don't know, but I think it is relatively safe to suggest that an airplane can't knock down a building
if it doesn't fly into it, and certainly not into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed. Could an airplane fly into the upper floors of a
skyscraper and cause explosions in the basement? These kinds of questions can go on and on, though that is neither here nor there.
In fact, if there really was a conspiracy within elements of our government to bring those buildings down, they would need a cover like airplanes
hitting them or something to that effect. That way, people would say, "well didn't you see the airplanes hit the buildings?" However, if your
intent was to bring those buildings down, then you surely wouldn't trust that the planes would do the job, especially seeing how they were built to
withstand an aircraft collision. Just to be safe and ensure that they come down, it may be wise to rig explosives in the buildings
Just as I have noted in one of my other threads based on 9/11, "The simple reality of 9/11,
what we know and what we don't
, most everything that we know about 9/11 is speculation. One of the chief arguments and goals of the truth
movement, is that we should have an investigation.. A real investigation, not some staged show-trial that ducks all of the important questions and
ignores anything that doesn't conform to a pre-concieved outcome. Just the fact that the majority of what we know about 9/11 is speculation, is
reason enough for a new investigation.