nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

Yurt said:
is it possible the terrorists planted demolition bombs so that the buildings would absolutely fall?
Click to expand...

Is it possible?

It is remotely possible, but given the clients who occupied WTC, it is highly unlikely.

But that's a question we will never know because the Bush Administration purposefully destroyed crime scene evidence and did not allow for thorough examination.
 
leaningright said:
I appreciate BAC and his opposing views (to my views anyway) on this board but here is where I have to part way away from him. I can in no way give any credence to any of the conspiracy theories that claim that the US government is/was complicit in anything the likes of what happened on 9/11. I have researched it myself, read numerous reports and watched everything I could find to watch on the matter. I am satisfied with the findings.
Click to expand...

Do you believe Pearl Harbor was a "suprise attack?"

Do you believe the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident was exactly as described?

Do you believe Saddam had WMD?

How many lives were lost on those lies?

I respect that you're satisfied with the findings, but fortunately my brother there are those of us who don't .. just as there were those of us who knew all the above was concocted government deception.

The notion of surprise and shock that the government would be involved in something like this can only come from people who haven't paid attention to our history.
 
Damocles said:
Actually it doesn't. It makes false statments such as "The FEMA Report concludes that fire brought down WTC 7" which we have shown earlier to be false.

Your "source" just says whatever it feels it needs to in order to "buttress" their ideas, because they know people who want to believe will never actually research.

The fact is the preliminary report suggested less damage than was evident. Pictures of the South of the tower show significant damage to the structure, and considering the walls were load-bearing, there was significant damage from the debris that contributed to the collapse.

Here is what ENGINEERS had to say...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5



They don't know the proportions... But it certainly did not state that just "fire" was the cause of the collapse. Severe Structural Damage.

I know it may seem strange to you, but when a nearby taller building rips off much of one of the load-bearing walls of a structure as it collapses, it causes severe structural damage and compromises the stability and longevity of a structure. Add to that the fact that nobody was fighting the fires as the main goal of firefighters was to get people out not water in....
Click to expand...

I gave you comments fom the engineers who designed the buildings and you give me Popular Mechanics.

I gave you the Laws of Science and Physics your fairy-tale violates. You give me nothing to refute that.

I totally destroyed SF'S notion about 707's

"Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707."

I gave you comments from THE HEAD STRUCTURAL ENGINEER OF WTC.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

I gave you comments from THE WHITE PAPER that was done on the structure of the buildings ..

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

I gave you comments from THE ARCHITECTURAL FIRM THAT DESIGNED THE TWIN TOWERS ...

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."

I gave you comments from THE ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR WTC ..

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Given the gravitas of these people, the mind searching for truth would pay attention and give pause, even if they believed something else.

You aren't looking for truth my brother. You're looking for excuses. This reality is more than your ideological mind can take. Surely Santa must be real.

Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics ?? Are you unaware of the history of Hearts-owned publications? Is the term "yellow-journalism" unfamiliar to you?

Please don't ever allow your fingers to type ever again that your sources are more believeable than mine.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Right. They had bombs in place, but wanted to use planes too, to make it more tv friendly.
Click to expand...
The act of terror was designed to create the largest amount of fear and outrage. So yes, it is possible that they both planted bombs and crashed planes into those buildings.

IMO, as BAC said, and something that I actually agree with him on, the government officials, in an attempt to cover their own ineptitude, ignored certain paths of investigation.
 
Damocles said:
The act of terror was designed to create the largest amount of fear and outrage. So yes, it is possible that they both planted bombs and crashed planes into those buildings.

IMO, as BAC said, and something that I actually agree with him on, the government officials, in an attempt to cover their own ineptitude, ignored certain paths of investigation.
Click to expand...

Yes. THe path that leads to them.
 
Damocles said:
The act of terror was designed to create the largest amount of fear and outrage. So yes, it is possible that they both planted bombs and crashed planes into those buildings.

IMO, as BAC said, and something that I actually agree with him on, the government officials, in an attempt to cover their own ineptitude, ignored certain paths of investigation.
Click to expand...

The Secret Service
The FBI
Department of Defense
The goddamn CIA

ALL CLIENTS in the WTC

HOW in the FUCK could anyone outside of the government strategically plant explosives in all three buildings without being caught?

You're looking for excuses and running out of argument.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
The Secret Service
The FBI
Department of Defense
The goddamn CIA

ALL CLIENTS in the WTC

HOW in the FUCK could anyone outside of the government strategically plant explosives in all three buildings without being caught?

You're looking for excuses and running out of argument.
Click to expand...
Please. People who work in repair, or just look that way, could do that.

This is just wasted breath.

And yes, "The FBI" etc can definitely be that inept.

BTW - This is not my argument. I stated it was possible that people can do that.
 
Damocles said:
Please. People who work in repair, or just look that way, could do that.

This is just wasted breath.

And yes, "The FBI" etc can definitely be that inept.

BTW - This is not my argument. I stated it was possible that people can do that.
Click to expand...

So is it POSSIBLE that our own government was complicit?
 
Damocles said:
Please. People who work in repair, or just look that way, could do that.

This is just wasted breath.

And yes, "The FBI" etc can definitely be that inept.

BTW - This is not my argument. I stated it was possible that people can do that.
Click to expand...

POST #427 / #465
 
Damocles said:
BAC, the buildings did not collapse at free fall. That would be impossible even in a controlled demolition. You tried to say earlier that I denied physics, but in reality, this statement is definitely a denial of physics.

In every single photo of the buildings, the debris that was falling outside the building (not in the "footprint", you know the debris that hit surrounding buildings, much like you wouldn't see in a controlled demolition, the same debris that damaged WTC 7's South side), you can see columns and other debris falling faster than the towers.

Every picture...

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

And much of this has to do with static vs. dynamic transfer:

http://www.burtonsys.com/staticvdyn/

The dynamic transfer of energy effects the rate of collapse. The idea that the building could hold the same level of weight that was in active dynamic transfer that it could statically seems to be the most major issue for theorists who cannot understand physics.

They hear somebody say, "It defies the laws of physics!" and repeat it as a mantra, but do not understand how the laws of physics actually apply. You'll hear them say, "The structure was designed to hold up those floors, so why would it collapse under their weight?"

The answer is in the difference between dynamic vs. static energy transfer. The towers were designed to hold the weight of the upper floors at static levels of energy transfer, not dynamic.
Click to expand...


One point that seems to be overlooked, is that a controlled demolition begins at the bottom; ie: the bottom supports are removed with explosives to bring the building straight down.
When this is done, you can clearly see the building come down from the bottom up and not from the top down.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And damo, your "scientists" paid by the military industrial complex in some capacity, will only say what they're told to say, because they know most fascist brainwash victims such as yourself are stupefied by credentials.
Click to expand...

And have you ever considered the possibiliity that your "scientists" are only saying what they are; because this is exactly what the CT's want to hear and that they have stupefied you, with their "credentials"??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And have you ever considered the possibiliity that your "scientists" are only saying what they are; because this is exactly what the CT's want to hear and that they have stupefied you, with their "credentials"??
Click to expand...

I have thought of this too. Out of all the stuff I have looked at, watched and read, I like this the best. I think it is the most thorough (thus for many it will be the most boring) explanation I have come across.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And have you ever considered the possibiliity that your "scientists" are only saying what they are; because this is exactly what the CT's want to hear and that they have stupefied you, with their "credentials"??
Click to expand...

I deduce my opinion from common sense, history, and knowing what fuckers our government is. Science has little to do with it, because they can find scientists to lie about anything.
 
AssHatZombie said:
BAC has exhibited superior mastery of this subject matter.
Click to expand...

I think it correct to conclude that you and I have both been on the intelligent side of this issue.

I think it also is correct to conclude that just because you and I draw swords on one issue, doesn't mean that we won't be standing next to each other with those swords on others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top