Originally posted by -PLB-
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?
Josephus23 already responded to you but I'll respond too.
It was already alluded to in the video that the one area with flowing, white-hot metal was not the only place where thermite could or would have been
the perimeter columns had bolt-access holes on the backs of them that allowed access inside. The corner of WTC2 where the white-hot
molten metal was flowing was damaged by the aircraft impact
, which is probably the only reason you are seeing it there at all in the first
2) Why is there just a single piece of steel which shows this corrosion? Shouldn't samples like this be all over ground zero?
Yes, this was not the only sample, and they probably were
all over Ground Zero. FEMA only retained a few hundred pieces of debris and the
image on page 1 is only of one of the pieces they found that exhibited this corrosion. Another engineer also found the same kind of thing from
3) In some cases you can actually see those streams accelerate, disproving an abrupt power release, and confirming pressure buildup as result
of collapsing floors.
The same thing happens in the OP video if you watch it without the blinders. The thermate is not
technically a high-explosive, it doesn't
detonate within a fraction of a second and give off a "sonic boom" effect either. Also the "pressure buildup" excuse is completely gibberish that
doesn't stand up to 10 seconds' worth of criticism. For example, if everything from the initiation point down was being destroyed and solid dust and
heavy debris being hurled outwards in all directions, what in the hell
makes you think that thing was air tight
, even between floors???
Windows were already blown out, and would give way much sooner than you would have a massive ejection of solid debris like the ones seen! All you are
doing is making weak excuses. Think about what you're saying man.
4) Except for a couple of witness reports, there isn't that much evidence of explosion sounds. Besides, explosions can have several other
"Couple" means two. Try scores
of them at least, and those are just the ones on public record that I can access online.
Here's a link to 46 of them to start you off:
I don't think any of the evidence is going to hold up in court.
You're right, because others have already tried (Sibel Edmonds, William Rodriguez) and they are invariably thrown out even before a hearing on "states
secrets privileges." Look up Sibel Edmonds' case history and see for yourself. It was thrown out once already by John Ashcroft himself citing the
states secrets privilege. Only if a jury was filled with people in shock and/or denial would this not stand up to legal scrutiny.
20-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)