posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 09:49 AM
Originally posted by -PLB-
Proving that thermite can cut through steel is like proving a bullet can kill someone.
As for the four points...
I don't think any of the evidence is going to hold up in court.
You pose some interesting questions so I will address them one at a time.
1) If what you see is thermite, what is all that thermite doing in that specific spot, and why is it only visible in that specific spot and not all
over the building? Can we rule out all other materials causing this?
All of the beams in the building were covered in a fire retardant known as asbestos
. For the anomalies to have occurred on the day of the WTC
explosions, then some type of highly engineered accelerant would have had to be used.
Thermite, or a more specific design of thermite according to not only Dr. Stephen Jones, but several
international scientists, known as
nano-thermite was used. This could have literally been sprayed on top of the asbestos, or the asbestos could have been removed in order to place the
nano-thermite in very specific areas.
But as I have said a ba-jillion times, this is speculation that is best answered with a new and impartial investigation with civilian oversight.
2) Why is there just a single piece of steel which shows this corrosion? Shouldn't samples like this be all over ground zero?
Starting immediately all of the refuse found at ground zero was hauled off and melted down. I believe that this occurred in China. Ground Zero was off
limits to everyone but those who had clearance.
Actually, corroded steel was ALL over the place, but we cannot say for sure until we have eye witness testimony.
A photog from FEMA released some pictures a while back that substantiate this.
And don't ask for links. Look for yourself and then prove me wrong.
3) In some cases you can actually see those streams accelerate, disproving an abrupt power release, and confirming pressure buildup as result of
Please elaborate on this as I do not see it as a valid argument.
4) Except for a couple of witness reports, there isn't that much evidence of explosion sounds. Besides, explosions can have several other sources.
I think that you missed out on a word in your first sentence.
That would be EYE witness reports that most definitely stand up in a court of law. Especially when the people in question were standing directly
beside the buildings and stated emphatically that the explosions came from the sub-basements of BOTH buildings.