nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

What do I believe? I think you are making some incorrect assumptions about what I believe.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you believe the pancake theory .. that fire and impact caused the buildings to collapse.

If that's the case, that's ridiculous. .. which I'm not saying to belittle you, but it is simply quite ridiculous.

You also claim to believe you know something is wrong with the official story .. which one wouldn't know with the way you attack those who KNOW there is something wrong with it.

I haven't read a single comment from you that raises serious questions about 9/11.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially you believe the pancake theory .. that fire and impact caused the buildings to collapse.

If that's the case, that's ridiculous. .. which I'm not saying to belittle you, but it is simply quite ridiculous.

You also claim to believe you know something is wrong with the official story .. which one wouldn't know with the way you attack those who KNOW there is something wrong with it.

I haven't read a single comment from you that raises serious questions about 9/11.
I believe it could have been helped along, just not with thermite for the myriad reasons we have discussed. I believe, not that the government planted the devices (if they were planted), but that they could have hidden evidence of them to protect their "precious" backsides and the fact that they had no idea who to catch, especially after they "officially" neglected to pursue avenues of evidence.

I have actually stated that in this very thread, but again... I don't believe you really read anything anybody posts on the subject other than maybe the first line or two, you haven't shown that you have by discussing anything beyond the constant repetition and insistence beyond all evidence that thermite was the cause of the collapse. The only thing I have stated unequivocally is the ludicrous idea that it was a thermite reaction that caused the collapse, and I have posted evidence to back up my claim, including direct quotes from the very sources cited by your links, the very same reports were used to refute the professed "evidence" of thermite that was presented....
 

I'm glad to see that you can still find humor, in the situation that you have subjected yourself to.

Let me guess: You got locked up, not because you go were caught with the "herb"; but because you couldn't live up to the terms of your probation??

Now, that's funny.
:lmao:
 
I believe it could have been helped along, just not with thermite for the myriad reasons we have discussed. I believe, not that the government planted the devices (if they were planted), but that they could have hidden evidence of them to protect their "precious" backsides and the fact that they had no idea who to catch, especially after they "officially" neglected to pursue avenues of evidence.

I have actually stated that in this very thread, but again... I don't believe you really read anything anybody posts on the subject other than maybe the first line or two, you haven't shown that you have by discussing anything beyond the constant repetition and insistence beyond all evidence that thermite was the cause of the collapse. The only thing I have stated unequivocally is the ludicrous idea that it was a thermite reaction that caused the collapse, and I have posted evidence to back up my claim, including direct quotes from the very sources cited by your links, the very same reports were used to refute the professed "evidence" of thermite that was presented....

I have not only read the reports, I've talked to and interviewed many of the people who wrote them .. including some of the evidence you presented. I've spoken to people on both sides of the issue .. it was my job to do so.

You seem to believe that just because you posted what you call evidence, I'm supposed to believe it .. but reserve the right to reject any information you don't believe for yourself.

I've heard ALL the arguments and I've rejected those that do not make sense and have been refutted by evidence and those who know what they're talking about. I don't have to rely on "links" as you claim .. most of the information is in my notes.

I was sitting in the Congressional chambers during the hearings.

I guarantee that you have not been as deeply involved in this issue as I have and you have not dissected as much information as I have. I've come to a conclusion that you don't agree with, but that hardly makes you more studied or informed on this issue than I am.

Some of the stuff you've said about thermite is just flat wrong .. like it only produces white smoke. Where did you get the information that thermite was used in the cleanup?
 
Oh sure .. it can happen three times in the same day to buildings of different strustures .. never before in history .. three times in the same day .. defies the laws of physcics, science, and engineering .. three times, same day.

Sure .. :)



The towers were designed withstand the impact of large aircraft with asymmetrical girders throughout the building. The towers stood close to an airport and they took the impact of a plane into the design specifications. The towers were better designed to withstand the impact of a large plane far beetr than other buildings that have been struck by planes .. and didn't melt.

What's your story for WTC7 .. wasn't hit by plane, no significant debris hit it .. free fall speed.



Many lessor buildings have been stuck by large planes .. none ever melted .. but beyond that, the belief that a pplane hitting a building would cause it to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed in decidedly unlearned. You would have to know absolutely nothing about physics or buildings.



Had you been paying attention you would know that I have expanded on the science quite often. It's not rocket science and most students learn them by the 8th grade. I know I did.

The Law of Falling Objects
The Law of Continued Momentum
Newton's Third Law
The Conservation of Energy Law -- An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take longer to reach the ground. If that object meets any mass resistence as it falls, it decreases the rate of fall even further.

The buildings on 9/11 fell at free fall speed .. which meant that NONEof the buildings encountered ANY resistance during their collapse and feel as id there was nothing but air. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum.. one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors and intact steel support columns the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

You cannot replicate such an event in a lab because it is not possible.

It is scientifically impossible that the fires in the World Trade Center generated enough energy to turn reinforced concrete into fine powder in mid-air. Each of the Twin Towers contained approximately 90,000 tons of concrete that was visibly pulverized as it exploded in mid-air.

It is scientifically impossible that the fires in the World Trade Center generated enough heat to threaten the structural integrity of the steel. Even FEMA acknowledged that the jet fuel completely dissipated within the first few minutes after impact. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene it quickly burns out without large amounts of air .. as it did on 9/11.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics -- Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

The towers came straight down but debris was blown in every direction .. pulverized debris.

Obviously you attended a different science class than I did so perhaps you can enlighten me on what science supports your conspiracy theory.

And while you're at it please show me where you got the idea that thermite was used in the cleanup.

Again....

1) WHAT about the collapse do you believe 'defies the laws of physics' ???? You KEEP saying that, but when I ask for you to clarify... you just huff and puff, post the LMAO emoticon and then pretend no one is asking you anything. Show me HOW it defies physics.

2) The TOWERS were designed to withstand the largest aircraft at the time they were built. A 707... which is not only smaller, but also slower. They also designed the building to withstand the 707 (they also assumed it would be low on fuel) as if it was slowing for a landing (according to YOUR FEMA reports) and accidentally hit the buildings due to fog or other inclement weather. The towers were NOT designed to withstand a fully loaded (fuel) 767 flying at 500 mph.

3) Again with your BULLSHIT claim on WTC 7... the REPORTS say there was extensive damage caused by the debris. The fucking morons that claim otherwise are the ones that cling to the preliminary report. Something that we covered about 250 posts ago that you shockingly chose to IGNORE.

4) You AGAIN try to compare buildings that are not of the same design. Show me a high-rise that was hit by a 767 at 500 mph with a full load of fuel that was designed like the WTC towers. Just one.... because if you note... we have pointed out time and again that your comparisons are BOGUS because the structures are so different.

5) AGAIN... NO ONE IS SAYING THE FIRES PULVARIZED THE CONCRETE... that is yet another moronic strawman that you are trying to create. But once again, you refuse to look at any of the other factors that when joined with the fire could indeed have created the fall.

6) As for the thermite use... go read the fucking report from FEMA that YOU posted. It does not say that thermite was not used as you claimed it did. In turn, we have shown you the link showing the friggin welder cutting the support beam during cleanup and it most certainly appeared thermite was used to cut through the beam.... but again... that was something that you ignored.

7) seriously... go read the FEMA report you posted.... then post the exact page where it states the jet fuel dissapated within a few minutes. Because I am sure firefighters in the military and at airports would love to see how that occured. Ever heard of a molotov cocktail...

8) Now... go to the same FEMA report, which you posted and I cited the exact page where it shows you the metallurgical info on the samples from WTC towers and WTC 7.... BOTH state that the metal did not likely come anywhere close to the heat that you would find in a thermite burn.

9) Go look up THERMITE... now tell us what it is made up of.... hint... one example (as I posted and you ignored) is IRON combining with Aluminum. BOTH are present in all three buildings.... NOW go read the fucking report from FEMA that you CLAIM to have read. Read the part I cited where it tells you what happened when the steel melted. Do come back here and let us know what they say formed.....
 
We have done that for 400 posts now... and you ignore it every time we do.... then turn around again and pretend it hasnt been done.

YOU sir haven't corrected a goddamn thing. Not one.

You simply post mindless shit then expect others to believe that bullshit.

... get real.
 
Again....

1) WHAT about the collapse do you believe 'defies the laws of physics' ???? You KEEP saying that, but when I ask for you to clarify... you just huff and puff, post the LMAO emoticon and then pretend no one is asking you anything. Show me HOW it defies physics.

2) The TOWERS were designed to withstand the largest aircraft at the time they were built. A 707... which is not only smaller, but also slower. They also designed the building to withstand the 707 (they also assumed it would be low on fuel) as if it was slowing for a landing (according to YOUR FEMA reports) and accidentally hit the buildings due to fog or other inclement weather. The towers were NOT designed to withstand a fully loaded (fuel) 767 flying at 500 mph.

3) Again with your BULLSHIT claim on WTC 7... the REPORTS say there was extensive damage caused by the debris. The fucking morons that claim otherwise are the ones that cling to the preliminary report. Something that we covered about 250 posts ago that you shockingly chose to IGNORE.

4) You AGAIN try to compare buildings that are not of the same design. Show me a high-rise that was hit by a 767 at 500 mph with a full load of fuel that was designed like the WTC towers. Just one.... because if you note... we have pointed out time and again that your comparisons are BOGUS because the structures are so different.

5) AGAIN... NO ONE IS SAYING THE FIRES PULVARIZED THE CONCRETE... that is yet another moronic strawman that you are trying to create. But once again, you refuse to look at any of the other factors that when joined with the fire could indeed have created the fall.

6) As for the thermite use... go read the fucking report from FEMA that YOU posted. It does not say that thermite was not used as you claimed it did. In turn, we have shown you the link showing the friggin welder cutting the support beam during cleanup and it most certainly appeared thermite was used to cut through the beam.... but again... that was something that you ignored.

7) seriously... go read the FEMA report you posted.... then post the exact page where it states the jet fuel dissapated within a few minutes. Because I am sure firefighters in the military and at airports would love to see how that occured. Ever heard of a molotov cocktail...

8) Now... go to the same FEMA report, which you posted and I cited the exact page where it shows you the metallurgical info on the samples from WTC towers and WTC 7.... BOTH state that the metal did not likely come anywhere close to the heat that you would find in a thermite burn.

9) Go look up THERMITE... now tell us what it is made up of.... hint... one example (as I posted and you ignored) is IRON combining with Aluminum. BOTH are present in all three buildings.... NOW go read the fucking report from FEMA that you CLAIM to have read. Read the part I cited where it tells you what happened when the steel melted. Do come back here and let us know what they say formed.....

:)

Case in point.

Not only have you not corrected a damn thing, you're INCAPABLE of even discussing the scientific laws THAT YOU ASKED FOR and couldn't produce ONE that supports your conspiracy theory.

Dude, I'm comfortable with you believeing in fairy-tales. I have a 3 year-old grandson that does the same thing. I bet he thinks he can climb in the cockpit of a big ass plane and fly it flawlessly as well.

.. and given your "logic" he probably could.

:)
 
Again....

1) WHAT about the collapse do you believe 'defies the laws of physics' ???? You KEEP saying that, but when I ask for you to clarify... you just huff and puff, post the LMAO emoticon and then pretend no one is asking you anything. Show me HOW it defies physics.

2) The TOWERS were designed to withstand the largest aircraft at the time they were built. A 707... which is not only smaller, but also slower. They also designed the building to withstand the 707 (they also assumed it would be low on fuel) as if it was slowing for a landing (according to YOUR FEMA reports) and accidentally hit the buildings due to fog or other inclement weather. The towers were NOT designed to withstand a fully loaded (fuel) 767 flying at 500 mph.

3) Again with your BULLSHIT claim on WTC 7... the REPORTS say there was extensive damage caused by the debris. The fucking morons that claim otherwise are the ones that cling to the preliminary report. Something that we covered about 250 posts ago that you shockingly chose to IGNORE.

4) You AGAIN try to compare buildings that are not of the same design. Show me a high-rise that was hit by a 767 at 500 mph with a full load of fuel that was designed like the WTC towers. Just one.... because if you note... we have pointed out time and again that your comparisons are BOGUS because the structures are so different.

5) AGAIN... NO ONE IS SAYING THE FIRES PULVARIZED THE CONCRETE... that is yet another moronic strawman that you are trying to create. But once again, you refuse to look at any of the other factors that when joined with the fire could indeed have created the fall.

6) As for the thermite use... go read the fucking report from FEMA that YOU posted. It does not say that thermite was not used as you claimed it did. In turn, we have shown you the link showing the friggin welder cutting the support beam during cleanup and it most certainly appeared thermite was used to cut through the beam.... but again... that was something that you ignored.

7) seriously... go read the FEMA report you posted.... then post the exact page where it states the jet fuel dissapated within a few minutes. Because I am sure firefighters in the military and at airports would love to see how that occured. Ever heard of a molotov cocktail...

8) Now... go to the same FEMA report, which you posted and I cited the exact page where it shows you the metallurgical info on the samples from WTC towers and WTC 7.... BOTH state that the metal did not likely come anywhere close to the heat that you would find in a thermite burn.

9) Go look up THERMITE... now tell us what it is made up of.... hint... one example (as I posted and you ignored) is IRON combining with Aluminum. BOTH are present in all three buildings.... NOW go read the fucking report from FEMA that you CLAIM to have read. Read the part I cited where it tells you what happened when the steel melted. Do come back here and let us know what they say formed.....


Super:
Trying to get that racist to see anything past his myopic view, is akin to :wall:
 
:)

Case in point.

Not only have you not corrected a damn thing, you're INCAPABLE of even discussing the scientific laws THAT YOU ASKED FOR and couldn't produce ONE that supports your conspiracy theory.

Dude, I'm comfortable with you believeing in fairy-tales. I have a 3 year-old grandson that does the same thing. I bet he thinks he can climb in the cockpit of a big ass plane and fly it flawlessly as well.

.. and given your "logic" he probably could.

:)

Things that were indeed corrected that you once again ignored....

1) The use of thermite to 'bring down' the buildings... FALSE... yet you still proclaim it to be true.

2) Corrected.... The towers were NOT built to withstand the 767's that hit them as you claimed. They were designed to withstand a 707, low on fuel, at lower speeds....

3) Corrected... your bogus claim that WTC 7 was not hit by significant debris... your FEMA report states otherwise.

4) Corrected.... your bogus claim that no other buildings have 'melted' in order to justify that the buildings could not have collapsed as they did.... when it has been repeatedly pointed out that NONE of the buildings... that is NOT ONE that you have attempted comparisons to, is designed the same way AND been hit by a 767 at high speeds full of fuel. NOT ONE.

5) Corrected... the buildings did not fall at free fall speed as you continue to proclaim. That bullshit was also debunked on the site you continue to ignore.... http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm ..... OOPS... looks like physics proves you wrong AGAIN. But I know... you will continue to ignore it.

6) Corrected... the only idiots on here believing in fantasies are you and the resident conspiracy nut Asshat. That should tell you something
 
Super:
Trying to get that racist to see anything past his myopic view, is akin to :wall:

I do not think BAC is racist. He is wrong on this part of his conspiracy, but I fail to see how that makes him racist. Nor have I seen anything else from him to indicate such.... at least not in my experiences with him.

That said he is a socialist nut :D
 
I do not think BAC is racist. He is wrong on this part of his conspiracy, but I fail to see how that makes him racist. Nor have I seen anything else from him to indicate such.... at least not in my experiences with him.

That said he is a socialist nut :D

I'm using his constant use of "whites" as a way to either justify the behavior of criminals or try and defend an action. :burn:
 
Things that were indeed corrected that you once again ignored....

1) The use of thermite to 'bring down' the buildings... FALSE... yet you still proclaim it to be true.

2) Corrected.... The towers were NOT built to withstand the 767's that hit them as you claimed. They were designed to withstand a 707, low on fuel, at lower speeds....

3) Corrected... your bogus claim that WTC 7 was not hit by significant debris... your FEMA report states otherwise.

4) Corrected.... your bogus claim that no other buildings have 'melted' in order to justify that the buildings could not have collapsed as they did.... when it has been repeatedly pointed out that NONE of the buildings... that is NOT ONE that you have attempted comparisons to, is designed the same way AND been hit by a 767 at high speeds full of fuel. NOT ONE.

5) Corrected... the buildings did not fall at free fall speed as you continue to proclaim. That bullshit was also debunked on the site you continue to ignore.... http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm ..... OOPS... looks like physics proves you wrong AGAIN. But I know... you will continue to ignore it.

6) Corrected... the only idiots on here believing in fantasies are you and the resident conspiracy nut Asshat. That should tell you something
Don't forget that any of the other buildings did not have fires that were not actually fought by firefighters, in every case in the past firefights put water on flame. Firefighters were sent in to save people, not the structure. Fires in WTC 7 especially burned for a very long time with nobody putting the blue onto the red.
 
Don't forget that any of the other buildings did not have fires that were not actually fought by firefighters, in every case in the past firefights put water on flame. Firefighters were sent in to save people, not the structure. Fires in WTC 7 especially burned for a very long time with nobody putting the blue onto the red.

BAC's likely response..... 'That is IRRELEVANT... meaningless... pointless... silly... ridiculous... how dare you suggest that the situations weren't the same.... I am trying to compare apples to chimpanzes here.... quit interrupting me....'
 
I have a small question. when you look at the wtc buildings falling, are you reminded of controlled demolition? Simple question.
 
Back
Top