Gone But Not Forgotten
- Oct 24, 2005
- Reaction score
How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?Timble2 said:Thermite is iron oxide and aluminium. There was a lot of melted aluminium around, the frame of the building was steel. Are these actually superthermite or a condensate from fine sprays of aluminium and iron oxide from the structure?
I didn't read Timble's comment as stating that aluminium is steel - rather that there was steel and aluminium around. Aluminium is used in window frames etc.How is steel aluminium? Explain the difference please?
Ah yes, 'super thermite'. It's thermite, it still has the same effect: burns very hot. You may need less, but it would still be a ridiculous amount to have the desired effect of bringing down a building. That still leaves the questions of who made it, transported it, planned the demolition and planted it in the building.Dingo667 said:But it said that they think it wasn't ordinary Thermite and that the minute "chips" of the material were intermixed and had to be seperated. Apparently this stuff reaches more heat and therefore less is needed. It isn't Thermite they have found. That is the whole point. Also the point is that this particular test was NOT conducted by NIST, so they wouldn't know. Hence I think its interesting.
You must have a very different definition of the word 'feasible' to the one in the dictionary.Bigfoot73 said:The most feasible suggestion for the demolition charges that I've heard is that they were planted by the WTC's owners or leaseholders not long after the 1993 truck bomb.The idea being to ensure the safe collapse of the towers in any future attack thus avoiding damages lawsuits.The terrorists or conspirators might not have known they were there.
... yet the abstract to which it points never uses the term 'explosive' at all.In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.
... which is the first and only place the alleged thermitic material is correctly alluded to as a 'pyrotechnic' (albeit it immediately following a reference to 'explosive', of which thermite is not an example)."explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings. The red/gray chips are the 'loaded gun' of 9-11."
Is it really feasible that Silverstein would admit in a pre-recorded documentary, even by mistake, that he had the building (rather than the operation) pulled? That comment has been turned over many many times but it only seems to strike those predisposed to believing the conspiracy theories as suspicious. The producers of the documentary clearly didn't find it suspicious.Bigfoot73 said:Feasible in as much as it allows plenty of time for the covert planting of the charges,whereas hastily completing such an operation only a few days before 9/11 would have been far more difficult.
It helps explain WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein's comments about "pulling the building" and similar comments by Building 7 workers and managers, one of whom had a countdown coming over his radio while he warned evacuees of imminent collapse :- when the countdown was heard to reach "one", Building 7 collapsed.
Don't think I've seen that one - have you got a link by any chance?Bigfoot73 said:I concede that Silverstein's comments do seem less incriminating after viewing the 9/11 debunking videos on YouTube,but that still leaves other telling evidence, such as the video of a series of explosions running up a corner of Building 7.
Yeah the NWO really messed up there, spend 8 years planning the demolition of a building then they told the news organisation from another country about their plans before it happened. Oops! Maybe they had a work experience kid who got confused.Bigfoot73 said:There's also film of the BBC coverage where they report the collapse 20 minutes before it happened.
Bigfoot73 said:Where are all these fires in this pic? Or in fact any pic?
Er...why didn't it collapse the moment it was on fire? That makes no sense.How did the damage have no effect on WTC7's structural integrity for so long then suddenly cause it's complete free-fall speed collapse ?
Nonetheless. Three steel cored buildings, including two of the tallest ever built, which had been specifically designed, back in the Nineteen Seventies, to withstand the impact of a 707 airliner, were totally pulverised and demolished, in prime time.hokum6 said:...
Let's just get this silly free fall thing out the way before you take it any further: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Take note of the bit at the bottom about how both WTC 7 and the main towers are many times taller than the largest building destroyed by a controlled demolition. Have a think about the time and manpower needed to plan the destruction of buildings of that size. Never mind the complete lack of evidence for explosives or any kind of planned demo job, that single fact alone makes 9/11 conspiracies utterly ridiculous.
I know why 9/11 conspiracies are so attractive. When you saw those events on TV it seemed unreal, like a movie, and you wonder how something like that could happen. It was so destructive and so brutally effective, how could it just have been a few guys hijacking a plane. But none of the alleged evidence in support of a conspiracy stacks up and all it takes is a bit of rational thought and logic to realise that they are all a bit silly. The most ridiculous thing is that you ignore the eye witness accounts of people who were there on the day, and you disregard the expert opinion of scientists and engineers with real qualifications and experience, and you believe the word of nobodies analysing YouTube videos. People who are desperate to find a conspiracy will find one, even if they have to twist the facts.
TBH I never thought it hugely surprising that towers would collapse under those extreme circumstances, so I'm not sure what "the evidence of my own eyes" means in this context.Why should it be so surprising that people might be more willing to believe the evidence of their own eyes, rather than the explanations of experts, given specific instructions, as to what to look for, what to examine and kept on a tight leash?