9/11 - "This is not the smoking gun it is the loaded gun"

Sofa_King Good

Danish Scientist Niels Harrit was one of 8 scientists who found nano-thermite in the WTC rubble that could not have come from the planes.

Their concusion was that up to 100 tons of explosives must have been placed in the building.

btw my girlfriend speaks Danish and she verified the translation.

Here is the video on Mainstrean Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&feature=player_embedded

And the report:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Sofa_King Good

This recent report by Jim Hoffman explains how the nano-thermite could have been placed.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Sofa_King Good

And WTC security: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Danish Scientist Niels Harrit was one of 8 scientists who found nano-thermite in the WTC rubble that could not have come from the planes.

Their concusion was that up to 100 tons of explosives must have been placed in the building.

btw my girlfriend speaks Danish and she verified the translation.

Here is the video on Mainstrean Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&feature=player_embedded

And the report:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

Well thats all nice but.

But how do you smuggle 100 tonnes of explosives into building.

How do you place these explosives.

Oh and thermite is a chemical reaction not a an explosive.

Other than those three points you're ontp a winner. not.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Well thats all nice but.

But how do you smuggle 100 tonnes of explosives into building.

How do you place these explosives.

Oh and thermite is a chemical reaction not a an explosive.

Other than those three points you're ontp a winner. not.

See link in post 2 Professor Diogenes

Did you watch the video? If so what did you think?

meglome

I'm going through this at the mo.

In the meantime SKG do you think that the Pentagon was hit by a plane? I'll explain why I asked.

meglome

And one observation.

Never mind that NIST explains WTC7's destruction as the first-ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building with the refreshingly novel failure mechanism -- supported by no physical evidence whatsoever -- that thermally induced expansion of a huge beam caused it to break loose of its connections and crash down, taking the rest of the skyscraper with it. It is the skeptics of this fairy tale that New York Times reporter Eric Lipton calls conspiracy theorists. 1

If I'm not mistaken other steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire alone. I'll get references.

The_Kew_Tour

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Danish Scientist Niels Harrit was one of 8 scientists who found nano-thermite in the WTC rubble that could not have come from the planes.

Their concusion was that up to 100 tons of explosives must have been placed in the building.

btw my girlfriend speaks Danish and she verified the translation.

Here is the video on Mainstrean Media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&feature=player_embedded

And the report:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/con...

interesting and thanks for link

will be interesting to see how far this devlops

Mahatma coat

So how isa this one gettin Spun?

are the Scientist Credintials in any way questionable?
Has he ever been proven to be a liar before?
Is there ANY Other explanation for the Presence of Thermate in large quantities?
What was the TV Show, Looked like a Current afairs/news/reputable jourhnaliasm?
can this scientist be linked to anyone with an outspoken view?

oh and most important apparently, whats his stance on the Holocaust?????

King Mob

Was this the same study that was discussed here before?

The one that only found trace amounts of a thermite like substance in four dust samples recived weeks after the event and with the exception one weren't taken for the site?

The same study that was published in a dodgy journal that publishes papers in exchange for money and allows the author to chose the review committee?

Yes it is:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055530131

Mahatma coat

and we have a winner, Congrats Mob, you win most predictable post of the mornin award.

so its Debunked, because You say its Debunked, pointin oput that we had this discussion earlier is incidental, you did not prevail with your point then I doubt anyone is going to be swayed by your tired rhetoric this time round.


oh and as per your own posts you can apply a standard but variable tone of sarcasm to my posts

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and we have a winner, Congrats Mob, you win most predictable post of the mornin award.

so its Debunked, because You say its Debunked, pointin oput that we had this discussion earlier is incidental, you did not prevail with your point then I doubt anyone is going to be swayed by your tired rhetoric this time round.


oh and as per your own posts you can apply a standard but variable tone of sarcasm to my posts

You mean where I pointed out issues with the paper?
You wanna address those points maybe?

And for a predictable post you didn't seem to actually predict it.

Mahatma coat

No, I couldnt be arsed doin that merry little fvckin dance with you, it wont achieve anything, you're never going to see the world as we see it.

and as for Predictions, you just missed the signs, for I am the Reinhardt of Boards, all my predictions are true after the fact:)

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, I couldnt be arsed doin that merry little fvckin dance with you, it wont achieve anything, you're never going to see the world as we see it.

Why hello Mr. Pot, I'm Mr Kettle.

Why is it so hard to just show evidence and logic.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and as for Predictions, you just missed the signs, for I am the Reinhardt of Boards, all my predictions are true after the fact:)

So you didn't actually predict anything then?

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

If I'm not mistaken other steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire alone. I'll get references.

The claim, as made is correct.

No other high-rise steel-framed building has collapsed due to thermal expansion causing failure via a single-point-of-failure which was prone to this fault.

What the claim neglects to say is that no other high-rise, steel-framed building with a single-point-of-failure which is prone to thermal expansion has ever been known to catch fire in an area which threatened said single-point-of-failure.

So basically, they're taking "WTC7's design was pretty unique and there is no directly comparable fire" and rewording it to make it seem like there is something suspicious about no comparable building collapsing from fire.

6th

Mahatma coat & King Mob, grow up.

Flamed Diving

Mahatma coat wrote: »

are the Scientist Credintials in any way questionable?

Has he ever been proven to be a liar before?

Is there ANY Other explanation for the Presence of Thermate in large quantities?

These would all be reasonable grounds for doubt,in any given case. The fact that you treat such reasonable questions with such disdain speaks volumes of your critical faculties.

Woger

Mahatma coat wrote: »

No, I couldnt be arsed doin that merry little fvckin dance with you, it wont achieve anything, you're never going to see the world as we see it.

and as for Predictions, you just missed the signs, for I am the Reinhardt of Boards, all my predictions are true after the fact:)

Poor bugger.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

The claim, as made is correct.

No other high-rise steel-framed building has collapsed due to thermal expansion causing failure via a single-point-of-failure which was prone to this fault.

What the claim neglects to say is that no other high-rise, steel-framed building with a single-point-of-failure which is prone to thermal expansion has ever been known to catch fire in an area which threatened said single-point-of-failure.

So basically, they're taking "WTC7's design was pretty unique and there is no directly comparable fire" and rewording it to make it seem like there is something suspicious about no comparable building collapsing from fire.

Thanks for the clarification Bonkey, a bit kinda sneaky of them really.

Diogenes wrote: »

• But how do you smuggle 100 tonnes of explosives into building.
• How do you place these explosives.
• Oh and thermite is a chemical reaction not a an explosive.

A few other points...

• How did the thermite not burn immediately when the plane crashed into the building?
• How would the cables controlling these 'explosives' not be cut by the plane crashing in?
• How did they get the thermite in the exact position for the plane to hit and subsequently the building to collapse from?
• Are there any experiments to show this nice thesis could work in practice?
• Why wouldn't the thermite not just burn a hole in the steel and pour through, it doesn't burn evenly after all?

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

I'm going through this at the mo.

In the meantime SKG do you think that the Pentagon was hit by a plane? I'll explain why I asked.

I honestly have no idea. All I know is that however many trillions that went missing from the Pentagon was announced 9/10.

If it was a plane I don't see how it would take away from the case of being an inside job tbh.

I just find it fascinating that on every single aspect their is an argument for either side, maybe that is the case with everything that is analysed to death but I dunno.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I honestly have no idea. All I know is that however many trillions that went missing from the Pentagon was announced 9/10.

Oh christ this again.

On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. 1 Â 2 Â

Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried...

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...

In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.

Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...

Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...

The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.

They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.

That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.

Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.

Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.

We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....
[plenty more here, please go read the whole thing]

http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html

entagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hxm

The money didn't go missing, Rumsfeld was talking about improving accountability for defence spending.
onestly, people just go for the most simplistic understanding of the shortist soundbite.

I'm currently reading the 3 trillion dollar war by Joseph Stiglitz, the pentagon's accounting behaviour is in an appalling state, it does NOT mean 2.3 trillion was nicked from the pentagon.


Jesus.

Sofa_King Good

Other than the fact that you signed yourself off as a God. Genuine thanks for clearing that up for me.

King Mob

So even if that report did show thermite was used to bring down the towers (and it's nowhere even close to that) why the hell would they need to fly planes into as well? Why not just fly planes into it?

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

If it was a plane I don't see how it would take away from the case of being an inside job tbh.

I just find it fascinating that on every single aspect their is an argument for either side, maybe that is the case with everything that is analysed to death but I dunno.

I asked because Jim Hoffman who wrote the thesis you linked in your original post (and seem to obviously believe) also wrote a very detailed article explaining how it was a plane that hit the pentagon, here. Do you believe this too?

I've no argument with the science he uses to form the thesis you linked and besides I don't know enough about it anyway. What I do have an argument with is the practicalities of actually doing what he says is technically possible (see previous list). And that's if I ignore the dodgy evidence that thermite was even found in the first place. So this whole thesis is formed on some serious stretches and at that rate why shouldn't I believe it was just a plane since that's where most evidence points.

I have no problem believing his essay on the Pentagon attack as it's simply so well laid out and backed up with evidence at every step. Read it all carefully and see for yourself.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

I honestly have no idea. All I know is that however many trillions that went missing from the Pentagon was announced 9/10.

Ah so we're back to the bigger picture again are we?

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

So even if that report did show thermite was used to bring down the towers (and it's nowhere even close to that) why the hell would they need to fly planes into as well? Why not just fly planes into it?

Don't you think it'd be a little more obvious if the towers fell out of the blue?

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Don't you think it'd be a little more obvious if the towers fell out of the blue?

I mean why not just use the planes?

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

I asked because Jim Hoffman who wrote the thesis you linked in your original post (and seem to obviously believe) also wrote a very detailed article explaining how it was a plane that hit the pentagon, here. Do you believe this too?

I've no argument with the science he uses to form the thesis you linked and besides I don't know enough about it anyway. What I do have an argument with is the practicalities of actually doing what he says is technically possible (see previous list). And that's if I ignore the dodgy evidence that thermite were even found in the first place. So this whole thesis is formed on some serious stretches and at that rate why shouldn't I believe it was just a plane since that's where most evidence points.

I have no problem believing his essay on the Pentagon attack as it's simply so well laid out and backed up with evidence at every step. Read it all carefully and see for yourself.



Ah so we're back to the bigger picture again are we?

Cant argue with your logic, but I wouldn't do it justice now. I have to sleep. I'll get back to you on it.

Mahatma coat

ahg I see We're back to the Evidence claims issue.

Rumsfield says that 2.3 Billion Dollars go missing

Ct'ers say hey hang on a mo explain that to us cearly

Govt supporters say *waves hands Furiously* see its just an accountin error


so when information is presented to back your argument then its Gospel, Eh Dio?


very handy

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

ahg I see We're back to the Evidence claims issue.

Rumsfield says that 2.3 Billion Dollars go missing

Ct'ers say hey hang on a mo explain that to us cearly

Govt supporters say *waves hands Furiously* see its just an accountin error

so when information is presented to back your argument then its Gospel, Eh Dio?

very handy

Okay let's assume Rumsfeld is talking about money what was actually stolen and not shoddy accounting. I don't think that is the case although given the accounting systems I wouldn't try and suggest that nothing was fiddled. But assuming money was stolen how would crashing a plane (missile whatever) into the mostly empty section of the pentagon actually hide anything?

So we're told it's suspicious that the plane hit (the easier to approach) mostly empty section of the Pentagon. But at the same time we're told that they are obviously destroying evidence (by hitting the mostly empty section ?!?!). Not for the first time this conspiracy is very contradictory.

Mahatma coat

It was a Distraction

the fact that we ended up discussing which part of teh Pentagon was hit is a victory to them, because We're not discussin how 2.3B dollars was unacountable in the Military Budget.

I also maintain that the SEC in Building Seven was one of the key targets of 11-9-2001

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

It was a Distraction

I agree but by whom and for what reason I fear we won't agree on.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the fact that we ended up discussing which part of teh Pentagon was hit is a victory to them, because We're not discussin how 2.3B dollars was unacountable in the Military Budget.

Given the documented very shoddy accounting and the vast amount of money they were spending it's not the implausible to believe. And at the end of the day they are not saying it's actually missing just badly accounted for. It's not even remotely the first time this has happened, although the budgets were colossal in this case.

I personally don't doubt what part of the pentagon was hit nor do I doubt that it was hit by a plane. This takes us back to distraction. There is plenty of distraction but the vast majority of it is by the truth movement themselves. They consistently give out contradictory information, 'proving' the conspiracy by saying X, then in the next paragraph proving the conspiracy with Y which clashes directly with X. Why would any government need to cause a distraction when there's a queue of people already doing it.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I also maintain that the SEC in Building Seven was one of the key targets of 11-9-2001

Well anything is possible but the SEC would have off site copies of everything so I don't see how destroying WTC7 would make any difference. And even if they didn't they could just go and and reinvestigate any cases again, all the people who ran the investigations were unhurt.