h2o,

Here is something for your open mind.

How do we know that you are not one of the conspirators? Perhaps you are poking for ideas that will inevitably cover you and your fellow conspirators assess. I recomend to everyone on this board not to interact to h20 about 911 conspiracy topics because h2o did them.





Oh yeah! The dust in your avitar contains thermite.

J7 seems repetitious, like he has only one thing on his mind.

Yup
































Springer season on the Clearwater.

is the gun steaming or is it smoking?

is my avatar dust or is it smoke?

one mans truth is another mans conspiracy i guess.

Ok. I'll go against what I said and I'll play for a bit. Then I will conclude with a conspiracy of my own.


First lets examine the paper. I read parts of it and skimed others. The paper is well written, reviewed and published. It proves exactly what it says it proves. They say that they retrieved 4 samples of WTC dust and found thermitic material in all 4 samples. They showed data, tried to validate their samples as pure, and showed evidence of the thermitic material. They followed a standard research format. No where did they suggest the placement or use of such material. Terms like "thermite", "super thermite", and "nanotechnology" can sound really cool/scary to people who do not know those terms, other than Holywood hype. Just because the paper is published and peer reviewed, does not mean its any good.

You should read the book "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. Summarizing the book, its full of turn-of-the-century science that revolved around the study of IQ and human intelect. It showed how common, peer reviewed, and published science was wrong and misenterpreted. Issues of race and sex are all over it but does point out scientist/researcher shortcomings in research techniques. Short story is be careful what YOU conclude from the work of others if your wish is to be deemed as credible.

Now about the purity of their sample. Firstly, the WTC did not fall on a clean environment so just by interaction of the surface it fell on, contaminates the sample. Well how did thermitic material get all over NYC? Have you ever herd of the incidiary devices that are propelled against the forces of gravity and exploded at some point during flight. Their called fireworks oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Did you know what makes the pretty white color in fireworks. Typicaly titanium is used but aluminum and magnesium are also used regularly. NYC has one the largest fire work displays in the world. Seriously, kick back and calculate the amount of fireworks that have been set off in NYC or surounding area where ash and unburned material could be blown around. The law of Conservation of mass says its stil there and the laws of gravity place it on the ground. Hell I bet I could find unburned thermitic material in any town that has had a firework display. Give me a break.

Ok so there you go. I threw you a bone since you wanted to play. Now the fun stuff.

My conspiracy is that people who spread conspiracies about 911 are terrorists using a horifc event to further divide americans and increase the level of distrust in the goverment and its values. Its good to analyze from all the angles but you can take your conspiracies and shove them striaght up your ass.

The government would never harm Americans to further an agenda. What kind of crazy person......oh, wait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba."

well that was some convincing evidence, j 7.

The fact remains that the nano-thermite found in all four samples is of the type used to make explosives and supports the controlled demolition theory.

you've presented nothing. 'proved me wrong' by showing only that I could be wrong and standing back and saying 'HA!!'....pretty weak stuff, even by dark side standards.

again, slower this time, just for you....

present some evidence to support your theory of collapse by fire. lets start with one piece of physical evidence, determine its validity and move on from there....

....or you can ignore me...

....one's things for sure though, I don't plan on [censored] right off or shoving anything up my ass anytime soon so you might consider toning the disrespect down a notch, since you brought it up.

Recall TWA 800, the 747 that exploded and split in two after it took off from New York? This case was full of conspiracy theories, remember the rocket launched from a Navy ship took it down. They found evidence of explosives during the initial investigation and the FBI at that point was certain it was a terrorist event, however their own investigator didn't believe it. Turns out that the plane was used for training some time prior to the crash, where some explosive substance was hidden so the bomb squad could train their dog. The real cause was a spark that ignited fuel vapors in the tank under the wing. It also happened on a 737 in Asia, only that plane was still on the ground.

The World Trade Center had been a terrorist target for a long time. The first almost successful attempt to take it down was in 1993, when a vehicle packed with explosives blew up. They were close, but not close enough to hitting the right part of the structure. Finally, they were successful in 2001, by flying planes into the building, as well as the Pentagon.

What happened to the World Trade Center is well documented. It was a terrorist attack. Focusing on some aspect of the event and putting forth a theory in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is to me indicative of a closed mind.

Myself, I think it is a good thing to read and listen to points of view that don't agree with your own, but in this case, you might as well be watching daffy duck and just enjoy the entertainment.

what overwhelming evidence??

http://www.twin-towers.net/tt_video.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/911-suspects-we-are-terro_n_173695.html

I will nibble at the bait, but I am not going to eat all the hooks and spend the rest of the night posting links to publically available information.

I don't know about everyone else...but the jetliners parking in the side of a building at +/- 300 mph seemed to be an overwhelming piece of evidence to me...

I'm not taking the position that the planes never crashed into the buildings or that there weren't elements of the muslim extreme involved. I accept this as fact, although I have heard and discarded a wide range of alternative theories on both subjects...

I am saying that I think the planes were a diversion and that after the planes hit, a series of explosive charges were used to explode (not implode as in a classic demolition)the towers. Explosions brought down the twin towers, not fire.

Boom Boom Boom

Eyewitness testimony by 9/11 heroes

Explosions Explosions Explosions

The physical evidence that could have shown beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that fire was the cause was 'cleaned up'.

There was a time when all I ever wanted to do wth this stuff was be right and keep my distance. Then, someone with whom I seldom agree but hold in the highest esteem and regard (a foil from another forum and died in the wool republican at that) challenged me to forget the towers long enough to examine wtc7...


Oregonian-

wtc7 came down into its own footprint at freefall speed(NIST has admitted the freefall aspect of wtc7's collapse)through the path of greatest resistance. It wasn't hit by a plane. It was damaged by debris (the extent to which it was damaged remains highly arguable). Buildings that fail due to structural damage topple, they do not implode and fall without resistance. Buildings that fail due to structural damage do not produce pyroclastic clouds of dust.

Have you ever watched the video of wtc7 coming down? What's it look like to you?

angle one

Angle two

Just say it.......it looks like any other building brought down by explosives, doesn't it? See that kink in the middle and then it just folds in on itself?

Classic characteristics of a controlled demolition. Nothing about the collapse of wtc7 indicates that it was brought down by either fire or structural failure.


**********************

nanothermite is not just some fancy way of saying regular old thermite. It is, unequivocally, a high energy explosive that goes boom.

It looks like any other building brought down by explosives.

Now what ?

If I agree,can I stop paying taxes ?

Maybe the same forces who dropped all those buildings also elected Obama... Where did all that money come from anyway ? Myspace ? PLEASE !

h2o-

My question about WTC 7 is, who would benefit from it's collapse? The symbolic towers are down, so why demolish this building? I'd say check out who got insurance payments - follow the money trail.

As far as eyewitnesses go, humans are THE WORST recorders of factual events, especially when under stress. I am not saying there isn't a conspiracy or that there is one, just that people suck at recounting actual facts when involved in accidents/tragedies, etc. Just think of all the fishing stories you've heard over the years!

Well Mike.......if you look hard at who had offices in the building, what kinds of documents were stored there and the size of the insurance payment versus the assessed value of the building its not very hard to find potential suspects if that's what you are looking for...I can give you some nudges if you'd like but the info is readily available and crosscheckable.

...it is also very, very difficult to convince me that 'the terrorists' have received any benefit whatsoever from the WTC disaster. Yes, you could pose the argument that their benefit is of a spiritual nature but, you would first have to show that the motives of al qaeda are spiritual. 'Osama Bin Laden' and his minions are motivated by power and money and they use religion as their shield. Can we agree that this is the pattern amongst extreme muslim groups? In terms of advancing their agenda of power perpetrating an attack on WTC should have seemed like a pretty bad idea, IMO.

wtc7 looks so much like a controlled demolition that questions come awfully easily. It was not hit by a plane. It can be categorically demonstrated with videotape that if there was extensive damage to the building, it was on only one side. Look at the videos again in that context...

I don't want to believe what I see either. No way....but there it is.

Just to add some fuel to your fire, did you know that the FBI can't link Usama Bin Laden to the WTC attack? If you check the FBI's ten most wanted list, Bin Laden is not accused of the attack or being an accessory. They also can't authenticate the video tape of Bin Laden saying he was behind the attacks. Here is link to the info:

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stori...-laden-to-9-11/

WTC 7 was on the grassy knoll.

ding ding ding! We have a winner!

.