towers taken down by exlosives,a question

seannash

okay so this is a one question thread.

i was looking at the coast 2 coast/911 thread and people seemed to skim over a good video explaining how the thremate claims were false.

so as not to derail that thread i want to ask the CT'ers does this explain away the finding for thermate

and if not what,why?

this isnt designed to catch anyone out but the more i read these threads the more frustrated i get by the question dodging.

oh an fyi i kinda think something was amiss on that day but the more i read into it the more i think the CT'ers have it wrong.

especially this one but im willing to hear this one debunked

(please dont start on about other topics.i just want this video debunked with scientific evidence)

???...that was horse****...
I cant believe im being im writing off an anti CT video like this....
that was probably the cia i reckon..

seannash

Deleted User wrote: »

???...that was horse****...
I cant believe im being im writing off an anti CT video like this....
that was probably the cia i reckon..

huh?

Brown Bomber

If you pause at 44 secs you can clearly see a perfectly preserved hijackers passport flying through the air.

IrelandSpirit

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you pause at 44 secs you can clearly see a perfectly preserved hijackers passport flying through the air.

LOL!!! Oh thanks ... thanks ...:D

IrelandSpirit

seannash, maybe put this question to the science forum?


Edit: I mean put to them without the CT elements, only focusing on the chemical composition etc.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

seannash, maybe put this question to the science forum?

yeah - or anywhere that sets store by evidence rather than faith-based theories.

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you pause at 44 secs you can clearly see a perfectly preserved hijackers passport flying through the air.

whilst your comment was a hilarious attempt at humour:rolleyes: i asked this question because it was skimmed over.

it was dodged

and now your trying to not answer it by talking about another reason

please answer what i asked

its a simple request.if you dont want to answer it i suggest you simply dont post

seannash

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

seannash, maybe put this question to the science forum?


Edit: I mean put to them without the CT elements, only focusing on the chemical composition etc.

no because i believe what is said in the video.having worked in construction in the states and in the towers i think it explains away the thermate theory.

im asking people on here to see if they agree and if they dont can they show me eveidence why

alastair

seannash wrote: »

im asking people on here to see if they agree and if they dont can they show me eveidence why

Good luck with that - it would appear no-one here who advocates the various 9/11 conspiracy theories is prepared to actually commit to the specifics of any particular theory - it's much handier to mutter ominously about cover-ups etc and avoid following the logic of the conspiracies.

IrelandSpirit

seannash wrote: »

no because i believe what is said in the video.having worked in construction in the states and in the towers i think it explains away the thermate theory.

im asking people on here to see if they agree and if they dont can they show me eveidence why

Oh, so you already have your mind made up. Ok.

BTW, we all know how frustrating it can be to have questions dodged, and to be fair, I don't think BB's comment was directed at your post.

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Oh, so you already have your mind made up. Ok.

Yeah - that's precisely what he said. :rolleyes:

Merch

seannash wrote: »

okay so this is a one question thread.

i was looking at the coast 2 coast/911 thread and people seemed to skim over a good video explaining how the thremate claims were false.

so as not to derail that thread i want to ask the CT'ers does this explain away the finding for thermate

and if not what,why?

this isnt designed to catch anyone out but the more i read these threads the more frustrated i get by the question dodging.

oh an fyi i kinda think something was amiss on that day but the more i read into it the more i think the CT'ers have it wrong.

especially this one but im willing to hear this one debunked

(please dont start on about other topics.i just want this video debunked with scientific evidence)

wether it was used or not, its called Thermite not thermate just to clear that up

alastair

Merch wrote: »

wether it was used or not, its called Thermite not thermate just to clear that up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

seannash

alastair wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

beat me to it.

yes thermite is more common but most CT's say it was thermate(and also nano thermate)

Merch

well I'll be

learn something new every day

seannash

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Oh, so you already have your mind made up. Ok.

BTW, we all know how frustrating it can be to have questions dodged, and to be fair, I don't think BB's comment was directed at your post.

and i expressed in the original post that i had one question i wanted answering.

i think the video explains away the theory but im willing to look at other evidence.

my mind is not made up it is swaying towards the no explosion version because the evidence seems to really suggest it and this exlains the trace elements found in the rubble

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Yeah - that's precisely what he said. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know that's what he said, that's precisely why I said that I know what he said.

IrelandSpirit

seannash wrote: »

and i expressed in the original post that i had one question i wanted answering.

i think the video explains away the theory but im willing to look at other evidence.

my mind is not made up it is swaying towards the no explosion version because the evidence seems to really suggest it and this exlains the trace elements found in the rubble

TBH, I don't feel qualified to answer one way or the other as chemistry is not my forte, but the eveidence for thermite is apparently in this paper, here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

If you're willing to look at other evidence, perhaps start here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Donkeygonads

CIA did 9/11 ...... a plane hit the Pentagon that same day .... not a trace of an plane was found or shown in evidence ... it "Vaporised " apparently !!!! .... give me evidence of any plane crash on land that never left a trace of wreckage ?!? ...... it hit a part of the pentagon (largest building in the world ) that was under construction !!! andd...... all the video camera's the week prior covering the surrounding streets were removed !!!!!.............. sounds like a missile strike to me !!! and given thats its a military installation ....... ( No Photo's allowed !!! )

alastair

Donkeygonads wrote: »

CIA did 9/11 ...... a plane hit the Pentagon that same day .... not a trace of an plane was found or shown in evidence ... it "Vaporised " apparently !!!!

Eh...

seannash

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

TBH, I don't feel qualified to answer one way or the other as chemistry is not my forte, but the eveidence for thermite is apparently in this paper, here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

If you're willing to look at other evidence, perhaps start here:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

i have read that and what it doesnt fail to mention is the maount of thermate it would need to bring them down would be very large.

one of the scientists in an interview conceeded that they would have to load pallets of the stuff onto each floor of the building.

when he was asked why this didnt draw suspicion and none of the survivors reported all this explosive material lying around on the day,he dodged it and said they would have to ask wtc security

here is the interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZa5ahqZksw

now the amount that he says would be required is far too large to avoid detection,he pretty much admits it himself

the paper above is published by the same scientist

Donkeygonads

sure most of those pics can be library pics from other accidents!!!
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
check that out !!!!

alastair

Donkeygonads wrote: »

sure most of those pics can be library pics from other accidents!!!

Sure - they could be, but they're not.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/pentagonattackpage2

Donkeygonads

Pentagon ....... containing top brass and the most sophisicated servelliance systems in the world......... something lands in their back garden, they wont allow too many lads with Nokia cameraphones to walk in the gate to take pics...... you can bet your bottom dollar any non-military joe walking within 2 miles of that place would be told to JOG - ON !!!:D ......... while the boys upstairs piece together some nice video footage for those pastic news anchors on CNN !!:D ...... enough to put the fear of god into every Brandon and Megan tuning - in at home in Awesomeville .......while their tucking into a tub of Supersize me chicken wings with extra cheese !!!!:p:D

alastair

Donkeygonads wrote: »

Pentagon ....... containing top brass and the most sophisicated servelliance systems in the world......... something lands in their back garden, they wont allow too many lads with Nokia cameraphones to walk in the gate to take pics

Sorry - I'm a bit confused here - a moment ago you were claiming that there was no debris presented in evidence - that everything was vaporised. Now you're saying that there was debris, it was just placed there by various generals etc?

Just trying to get a grasp of what your claim actually is.

Oh, and well within two miles from the building - no evidence of any great ring of security:

Donkeygonads

sure, that pic could be taken anywhere .....at any time !!!

In my opinion, the Pentagon was hit by a missile strike .... co-ordinated by a very structured release of photo and video evidence .... all orchastrated by the brass upstairs !!! All you can read is...reports of this .... reports of that ........ these military structures are so choreographed with their release of info .......because its "National Security " nonscence ........ they're basically brain washing JOE PUBLIC !

DublinWriter

seannash wrote: »

i have read that and what it doesnt fail to mention is the maount of thermate it would need to bring them down would be very large.

one of the scientists in an interview conceeded that they would have to load pallets of the stuff onto each floor of the building.

I'm trying to remember where I heard this, but I remember hearing an interview with an English guy who worked as an IT admin for a financial services company in the South Tower.

He was doing server upgrades the weekend before 9/11 and all through the Saturday and Sunday he heard what he thought sounded like forklift trucks rumbling back and forth on the empty floor directly above.

When he had finished his work on the Sunday evening he left his office and went directly to the unrented office space above to find that the office space was completely empty.

Because he had worked the weekend he had the day of 9/11 off in lieu.

alastair

Donkeygonads wrote: »

sure, that pic could be taken anywhere .....at any time !!!

In my opinion, the Pentagon was hit by a missile strike .... co-ordinated by a very structured release of photo and video evidence .... all orchastrated by the brass upstairs !!! All you can read is...reports of this .... reports of that ........ these military structures are so choreographed with their release of info .......because its "National Security " nonscence ........ they're basically brain washing JOE PUBLIC !

Well, these people know what they saw, and they were there.

thecommander

DublinWriter wrote: »

I'm trying to remember where I heard this, but I remember hearing an interview with an English guy who worked as an IT admin for a financial services company in the South Tower.

He was doing server upgrades the weekend before 9/11 and all through the Saturday and Sunday he heard what he thought sounded like forklift trucks rumbling back and forth on the empty floor directly above.

When he had finished his work on the Sunday evening he left his office and went directly to the unrented office space above to find that the office space was completely empty.

Because he had worked the weekend he had the day of 9/11 off in lieu.

I think I remember an interview where some fella said that lad wasn't telling the truth.