9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[hokum6]

Even if one accepts that it was all a conspiracy - America's Reichstag fire - why on earth would it be necessary to demolish the towers and take all the attendant risks of one of the many hundreds of people who would need to be involved blowing the whistle? Wasn't flying planes into the towers dramatic enough?

Ask a conspiracy theorist this question and they get a bit confused, usually come up with some weak excuse about how the planes weren't enough or the buildings had to be destroyed to claim insurance money or how WTC 7 was bought down to destroy government files (I suspect a paper shredder and hammer would be cheaper and easier).

You don't need to watch any videos or examine evidence to come up with reasons why it makes no sense.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Even if one accepts that it was all a conspiracy - America's Reichstag fire - why on earth would it be necessary to demolish the towers and take all the attendant risks of one of the many hundreds of people who would need to be involved blowing the whistle? Wasn't flying planes into the towers dramatic enough?

...

Because it was probably designed to be seen on TV screens, all over the World. A Media spectacle. A symbolic act, intended to bypass reason and go straight for the jugular.

That's why a moments reflection exposes it as more like an enormous special effect, than something real. A giant firework, pointing the way to horror.

Show me any truth, in anything official that has happened since. There's not a lot on show.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Hokum6 : I'm not saying there was no fire, just that the videos don't show it being engulfed in flames on most floors.I'm sure there are witnesses who would agree with that.
I thought you were implying that the damage to the SW corner had something to do with the collapse. I do not find it suspicious that it didn't collapse a lot sooner, I find it suspicious that it collapsed at all, and don't think it due to the corner damage or the fire.
As for the freefall collapse your link led to that tired old stack-of-cards theory:-nitpicking about a few seconds fall-time doesn't make the collapses look any less suspicious.Added to which WTC7 gave way at the bottom first, whereas the towers went top-down, which leaves the sceptics needing a new theory to explain away 7's collapse.One which explains why the rooftop structures, way above both damage and fires, went first.

 

[hokum6]

I thought you were implying that the damage to the SW corner had something to do with the collapse.

Of course it had something to do with it. The building had been hit with debris from a skyscraper, a big hole is going to weaken its structure.

As for the freefall collapse your link led to that tired old stack-of-cards theory:-nitpicking about a few seconds fall-time doesn't make the collapses look any less suspicious.

But nit-picking about a few seconds is all anyone does when they mention the free-fall thing. Nobody with any expertise agrees about this free-fall theory, it's just a mantra repeated over and over by conspiracy theorists without any supporting evidence (YouTube videos aren't evidence).

Here's a very detailed document about the free fall theory by a man with a real degree: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

"these times are frequently quoted as the actual collapse times. This is erroneous for two reasons. First, it should be noted that the start of the major oscillations in the seismic signature of each collapse event corresponds to the ground impact of the main upper section of the towers. As TV coverage of the event shows, this impact occurred about 10 seconds after the start of the collapse of each tower."

And there's still nothing showing the presence of explosives, nor can you explain how they would have got explosives in there, how they would have planned a demolition of this size (several times larger than any before) or what happened to the many people that would have to have been involved.

Added to which WTC7 gave way at the bottom first, whereas the towers went top-down, which leaves the sceptics needing a new theory to explain away 7's collapse.One which explains why the rooftop structures, way above both damage and fires, went first.

You're comparing two different buildings, so that's completely irrelevant. Remember that big hole in WTC 7? You don't think that would be why it fell from the bottom? And we already know why the towers fell the way they did. The steel frame was weakened by the fire and impact, the upper floors and outer supports gave way and the whole thing came pancaking down. You can see it in the videos from the day, what you can't see is any evidence of a planned demolition.

Because it was probably designed to be seen on TV screens, all over the World. A Media spectacle. A symbolic act, intended to bypass reason and go straight for the jugular.

So just flying the planes into the building wasn't enough, they went through the incredibly complex steps of destroying three huge buildings with an unprecedented feat of demolition that left no evidence? Guess the NWO never heard of K.I.S.S.

 

[Ringo]

I think the demolition theory is nonsense but thinking outside of the box here, could the thermite not have been onboard the planes? Payload delivered right into the impact site itself?

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I think the demolition theory is nonsense but thinking outside of the box here, could the thermite not have been onboard the planes? Payload delivered right into the impact site itself?

Thermite wouldn't wouldn't work like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

Or, thermate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OELagWfAk&NR=1

It would have to be in something like direct contact with the steel frame of the building. Once ignited, it would cut through it like a hot knife through butter, though.

--- --- --- --- ---

Another theory as to how it might have got there.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412185322AAtumUB

Groucho:

Could nano thermite have been installed during the upgrading of fireproofing?

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

...

Additional Details
The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing. Preparation could have been done months in advance.

...

The guys spraying it on might not even have known what it was.

 

[Bigfoot73]

The damage doesn't go in very far. It didn't get visibly worse in the following hours, as it might have if it were a major cause of the collapse.
The pdf. by the man with the real degree was quite impressive, unfortunately I've got a real degree too, and don't see how he can be certain about the impact resistance value assigned to the core columns. How is it that this 47-column solid steel core managed to collapse in perfect unison with the floors, not even leaving stumps? They weren't affected by impact and I fail to see how fire could have fatally weakened them.
Wouldn't the architects have crunched all these numbers when designing the towers to withstand the impact of a 707-bigger than a 767? Did they get their sums wrong? If so, how have they escaped censure, rather like all the radar and air force personnel whose everyday mistakes are supposed to have inadvertently let the hijacked planes through? Has the construction of steel framed buildings reformed drastically in the light of any supposed revelations from the WTC collapses? You might have thought it would, but it hasn't.

Pietro M :-the brushed - on nanothermite theory is absolutely bang on the money! the issue of explosives placement has always been difficult and your theory deserves wider circulation.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Pietro M :-the brushed - on nanothermite theory is absolutely bang on the money! the issue of explosives placement has always been difficult and your theory deserves wider circulation.

The theory's not mine, I have to say. Just trying to keep the Thread on topic.

If the stuff had been applied at some point, it would probably have been sprayed on.

 

[Timble2]

... the brushed - on nanothermite theory is absolutely bang on the money! the issue of explosives placement has always been difficult and your theory deserves wider circulation.

It's ridiculous, a an electrical short or minor fire, would have the potential to turn the building into a roman candle. It's suicidal coating a structure with an incendary substance.

BTW hot steel loses structural strength long before it reaches melting point, a sustained fire would, weaken the structure, even single storey steel framed stuctures buckle badly in a fire and they're not carrying the loads that the WTC was carrying.

707s aren't bigger than 767s, they may be a bit longer, but they're slightly lighter. In the mid-1960s, when the towers were designed there was a lot less comptuting power available, so estimating the ability of the structure to survive impacts, would be a lot more difficult than it would be today. And the structures did survive the initial impacts...

There was nothing to censure the architects about...

 

[ramonmercado]

I think the demolition theory is nonsense but thinking outside of the box here, could the thermite not have been onboard the planes? Payload delivered right into the impact site itself?

Or it might have been Termites. Just think of it: millions of Mutant Termites let loose. They would make short work of any building.

 

[hokum6]

Ah, the nano-thermite theory. Gotta love the tenacious conspiracy nuts, they never stop coming up with wacky new ideas.

The amount of thermite required - nano or not - would have been huge. A thin layer of thermite is not going to cut through the thick steel supports of a building. And spraying it on isn't going to make a difference, thermite still does not behave the way conspiracy wackos want it to, even if it's magical nano-thermite. You would still need to contain it to direct the reaction, and the tons of thermite needed to bring down a building would have some very noticeable effects indeed.

Still leaves the question of who made this special thermite in such large quantities, who planned and carried out the attack and of course why they would even go to such trouble. Then there's all the investigators they presumably paid off to ignore the evidence. That is a lot of corrupt people.

Regardless of that, can you prove that anyone is producing it in sufficient quantities? Far as I can see it's still in the experimental stage. All that's happened is someone has come across the term on Wikipedia and realised it's perfect for their nutty demolition plot. Hey, it's got 'nano' in it, that must be good, right?

If you're going to invent magical technology you may as well go all out and claim that George Bush himself waved a magic wand and made the buildings fall down.

Funny how this keeps getting ever more ridiculous as each theory is debunked. I eagerly await the cruise missiles with holographic projectors story.

It's ridiculous, a an electrical short or minor fire, would have the potential to turn the building into a roman candle. It's suicidal coating a structure with an incendary substance.

Good point. That would have been embarrassing for the lizard people, years of work ruined by a faulty wire.

 

[Quake42]

I remain baffled at the way these bonkers theories are still staggering around, apparently unable to die, mutating into even less likely scenarios whenever the current nuttiness is debunked.

I don't see what's so hard to understand, or why it's so unbelievable that:

1. A group of extremists with some limited piloting skills, hellbent on killing themselves and others, take advantage of lax US airport security and hijack commercial airliners
2. Said extremists fly those airliners into large buildings
3. The ensuing damage and fire from the thousands of litres of highly flammable jet fuel causes huge damage to those buildings
4. The buildings ultimately collapse, in the course of which they damage some other buildings which are close by.

I'm prepared to accept that there may be conspiracy/cover ups relating to the attacks, but if so they will relate to the usual arse covering seen in all governments and bureaucracies, eg around the failure of the FBI to investigate reports of suspicious trainee pilots or the cosy relationship between the Bush administration and the Saudis. That's where the conspiracy theorists should be looking, rather than inventing crazy stories about nanotechnology.

This stuff is serious. Healthy scepticism of the government and media has in some corners turned into a blatant refusal to accept any facts which do not chime with that individual's view of the world. It's this nonsense that has led to a majority of young Muslims in the UK denying that their co-religionists were responsible for the Twin Towers or the London Tube bombings - not to mention the growth of Holocaust denial.

People really need to get a grip.

 

[hokum6]

Healthy scepticism of the government and media has in some corners turned into a blatant refusal to accept any facts which do not chime with that individual's view of the world.

Not to mention the worrying anti-intellectual movement, where people with genuine experience and/or qualifications are ignored or drowned out by the clamouring noise of thousands of idiots ranting about the latest conspiracy theory du jour. It's bad enough that people would rather believe the word of a guy sat in his basement making snappily edited YouTube videos, even worse is when the media attempts to present a 'balanced' view of a complex topic by letting some celebrity air their moronic views as though they matter at all (see: the MMR vaccine fiasco).

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

It's ridiculous, a an electrical short or minor fire, would have the potential to turn the building into a roman candle. It's suicidal coating a structure with an incendary substance.

BTW hot steel loses structural strength long before it reaches melting point, a sustained fire would, weaken the structure, even single storey steel framed stuctures buckle badly in a fire and they're not carrying the loads that the WTC was carrying.

...

I admit the theory does seem to suggest that the Twin Towers were turned into the equivalent of titanic sparklers, at some point in their history, by person, or persons, unknown.

However, I still find the official explanation for the total, speedy and catastrophic collapse of the buildings even more ridiculous. A glance at the original designs or photos taken during the building phase will show just how truly massive and solid the central, supporting, steel frames, actually were.

Any dismissal of of the thermite explanation which, in doing so, suggests that vast quantities of thermite would be necessary to achieve such a collapse, only underlines just how unlikely the official explanation actually is.

As to the mention of magic wands, most stage magicians use magic wands as part of their technique of mis-direction, like their pretty assistants. Perhaps that's all the planes were. While everybody is directed to watch the planes colliding with the towers and exploding, the real action is taking place elsewhere.

Holograms, reptilians, all very amusing. Perhaps, just more mis-direction, after the fact.

 

[Quake42]

Perhaps that's all the planes were. While everybody is directed to watch the planes colliding with the towers and exploding, the real action is taking place elsewhere.

Or, maybe, the buildings just collapsed.

You know, on account of being hit by a commercial airliner packed full of fuel, flying at several hundred miles an hour. That sort of thing.

 

[Bigfoot73]

How is it that a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel, minus what combusted immediately or burned away outside the towers, could do as much damage as an impossibly large quantity of explosives or thermite?
As for the dumbed-down YouTube auteurs with the temerity to contradict experts, what about all the experts who agree with the conspiracists?Most of the videos consist of TV channel footage, some of it showing reporters describing grey windowless military planes.
The hijackers had multiple identities, no background of Islamist militancy,and in some cases hedonistic leisure pursuits.Some of them are still alive , and Mohammed Atta didn't get on the plane.

What keeps us self-deluding conspiracy-monkeys going is preposterous stuff like the way Flight 93 disappeared into the ground without a trace except a hijackers' personal affects, only to land safely in Cleveland an hour later.
Or the Pentagon gate footage of the small white missile hitting it-not an airliner.Or the way tha 'airliner' went all the way through the Pentagon's rings to emerge through a tiny exit hole without so much as breaking a window in-between or leaving any wreckage. The wreckage was supposedly vapourised by the intensity of the fire yet apparently the bodies were identifiable by fingerprints!
Or the unaccountable presence on the WTC's pavements of a hijacker's travel documents and a jet engine. Someone got the number off it before it disappeared and it turned out to be from a 1960s bomber called a B66.If the sceptics require such rigorous standards of evidence for WTC7, let's see what they can come up with for everything else suspicious about 9/11.

 

[MsPix]

... The wreckage was supposedly vapourised by the intensity of the fire yet apparently the bodies were identifiable by fingerprints!...

No they weren't, they were identified by a process of elimination from DNA samples. IRRC of the remains that they think are the highjackers' they haven't actually identified which was which.

Newsweek


http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... 01mortuary]History Commons[/url]

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Perhaps that's all the planes were. While everybody is directed to watch the planes colliding with the towers and exploding, the real action is taking place elsewhere.

Or, maybe, the buildings just collapsed.

You know, on account of being hit by a commercial airliner packed full of fuel, flying at several hundred miles an hour. That sort of thing.

As far as I can make out, according to hokum6, a packed airliner, or two, packed with fuel, even traveling at several hundred miles an hour, probably wouldn't have been enough.

...

The amount of thermite required - nano or not - would have been huge. A thin layer of thermite is not going to cut through the thick steel supports of a building. And spraying it on isn't going to make a difference, thermite still does not behave the way conspiracy wackos want it to, even if it's magical nano-thermite. You would still need to contain it to direct the reaction, and the tons of thermite needed to bring down a building would have some very noticeable effects indeed.

...

So, still a mystery, at least to me. If only one of the buildings had collapsed, in quite such a calamitous fashion, or if something more substantial had remained of at least one of the inner steel skeletons of the buildings, I might have been a bit more convinced.

Just too much of a perfect storm to be true.

 

[Bigfoot73]

It was originally claimed that the Pentagon bodies were identified by fingerprints. My point was that there wouldn't have been any passenger bodies there seeing as there wasn't a plane there in the first place let alone one which somehow evaporated in the fire.
Here's another one for the sceptics to ignore :- the crater in the landfill which Flight 93 was supposed to have disappeared into is in a US Geological Survey satellite photo from 1994?!

 

[Timble2]

It was originally claimed that the Pentagon bodies were identified by fingerprints. My point was that there wouldn't have been any passenger bodies there seeing as there wasn't a plane there in the first place let alone one which somehow evaporated in the fire.
Here's another one for the sceptics to ignore :- the crater in the landfill which Flight 93 was supposed to have disappeared into is in a US Geological Survey satellite photo from 1994?!

No this stuff only happened in the deluded imaginations of conspiracy monkeys like yourself....

 

[Quake42]

So, still a mystery, at least to me. If only one of the buildings had collapsed, in quite such a calamitous fashion, or if something more substantial had remained of at least one of the inner steel skeletons of the buildings, I might have been a bit more convinced.

Just too much of a perfect storm to be true.

And a vast (and completely unnecessary) conspiracy involving a cast of thousands and experimental nano technology is more likely to be true?

The 9/11 conspiracy stuff is a bit like arguing with creationists. They desperately want their fantasy to be true and no amount of rational discussion will dissuade them.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Stumbling over one's grammar while resorting to an abusive tone does not constitute a cogent response to any of my points.
No august scholars to counter my web bot amateurism?
No chillingly rational debunking to deflate my YouTube - fuelled feverishness?
Tsk tsk....

 

[Bigfoot73]

Quake 42, where is the rational discussion? All through this thread I have been raising points that have gone unanswered.That's why conspiracists are still adamant 8 years after 9/11:- the sceptics are short on answers.

 

[Quake42]

Quake 42, where is the rational discussion? All through this thread I have been raising points that have gone unanswered.

As far as I can see all of your points have been answered. You may not agree with those answers, but that is a different matter.

That's why conspiracists are still adamant 8 years after 9/11:- the sceptics are short on answers.

See above. The "sceptics" (I would prefer realists) don't see anything hugely surprising about tall buildings collapsing when hit by enormous aircraft at high speed.

The realists wonder why no reputable engineer has backed up any of the conspiracy theories, leaving their adherents to rely on YouTube and internet blogs.

The realists query why it would be necessary to go to all that risk and trouble of dynamiting the buildings when the horror of the planes would provide all the justification Bush needed for the War on Terror.

The realists find it hard to believe that a conspiracy of the type you describe - which would involve thousands of people - could survive for any length of time without someone blabbing. Is it really credible that no one involved in this would have said anything in 8 years? Not even a deathbed confession, or a conversation with a spouse or a drinking buddy?

In my line of work I have to deal with quite a lot of confidential matters which are sensitive but obviously nowhere near as dramatic as what is being suggested here. Believe me when I say that once a hundred or so people across the country know, you may as well post a press release. Why would something this huge be any different?

 

[Bigfoot73]

If government employees were incapable of keeping secrets the world order would be far different than what it is today! What a remarkable statement! They've always kept quiet about everything else, why not this?
Consider the mindset and motivations of neocon military/intelligence insiders- exactly the sort of idealists who might think the end justifies the means.

 

[Analis]

I remain baffled at the way these bonkers theories are still staggering around, apparently unable to die, mutating into even less likely scenarios whenever the current nuttiness is debunked.

I don't see what's so hard to understand, or why it's so unbelievable that:

1. A group of extremists with some limited piloting skills, hellbent on killing themselves and others, take advantage of lax US airport security and hijack commercial airliners
2. Said extremists fly those airliners into large buildings
3. The ensuing damage and fire from the thousands of litres of highly flammable jet fuel causes huge damage to those buildings
4. The buildings ultimately collapse, in the course of which they damage some other buildings which are close by.

Why is it so difficult to believe ? You summed up the many holes of the official tale (pilots with limited skills impacting buildings at 800 kmph, the ensuing damage and fire, "lax" security as a whole I suppose etc...), or its physical impossibilities. The collapse of the WTC7, for example, would need the softening at high temperatures (more than 800° C) of whole floors at the same instant. A pure miracle, in the religious meaning. And with no evidence of the needed fires.
As for the NIST photo showing damage on WTC7, there is strong suspicion that it is a fake. It surfaced only lately, and the Zafar photo shows no sign of it ( http://forum.reopen911.info/t6184-wtc-7 ... ondre.html post #25). Not that it is very important, as the damage could not account for the vertical and symmetrical fall.

I'm prepared to accept that there may be conspiracy/cover ups relating to the attacks, but if so they will relate to the usual arse covering seen in all governments and bureaucracies, eg around the failure of the FBI to investigate reports of suspicious trainee pilots or the cosy relationship between the Bush administration and the Saudis. That's where the conspiracy theorists should be looking, rather than inventing crazy stories about nanotechnology.

This stuff is serious. Healthy scepticism of the government and media has in some corners turned into a blatant refusal to accept any facts which do not chime with that individual's view of the world. It's this nonsense that has led to a majority of young Muslims in the UK denying that their co-religionists were responsible for the Twin Towers or the London Tube bombings - not to mention the growth of Holocaust denial.

People really need to get a grip.

You are prepared to accept. The trouble lies there : the world doesn't work according to what you, or anyone is prepared to accept. The incompetence theory is just tired, its acceptance is a sign that one is not ready to accept what doesn't fit with their preconceptions. Dissent on the official version is not a matter of will to believe and irrationnalism as opposed to rationalism and acceptance of the facts. The official version is much more irrational, and has all the hallmarks of a fanciful conspiracy theory. Supporters of the official versions certainly have a will to believe in it, despite its many inconsistencies and irrational features, for reasons of their own ; I suppose many have a need in an all-powerful enemy, hence the success of the islamofascist. And please, don't come with references to Holocaust denial (not in the rise in the West as far as I know) ; it is too easy to call someone a revisionnist, I could do the same ; or to creationnists, because "officialists" certainly have the same way of reasonning. And by the way, how would be called a supporter of the existence of the Holocaust in a world where the nazis won the war ? A conspiracy nut.

 

[Quake42]

If government employees were incapable of keeping secrets the world order would be far different than what it is today! What a remarkable statement! They've always kept quiet about everything else, why not this?

Nonsense. When have government employees ever kept quiet about anything? Civil servants leak all the time. Even the secret service suffers from this, often for the most banal of reasons. Think Peter Wright moaning about his pension and spilling the beans in the meantime, or David Shayler's desperate attention-seeking.

An operation of this size would take a very large number of people who would have to be "in" on it, many at a fairly junior level. It is simply not credible that none of them would say anything to anyone in eight years.

*Edited for typo

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

One last Post from me on the subject.

A recent, English language, interview with Niels Harrit, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, about the alleged discovery of particles of 'nano thermite' amongst the rubble of the WTC, from 'Russia Today'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RNyaoYR3y0

About the report mentioned by Professsor Harrit, which was published in April.

http://www.visibility911.com/reports-thermite01.php

Special Report: Thermite Fingerprint

Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are among several authors of a new paper that has appeared in the prestigious scientific journal "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" and is titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."

Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

"In short, the paper 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."
-- Dr. Steven Jones

Read this important paper directly at The Open Chemical Physics Journal website here.

...

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

How is it that a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel, minus what combusted immediately or burned away outside the towers, could do as much damage as an impossibly large quantity of explosives or thermite?
As for the dumbed-down YouTube auteurs with the temerity to contradict experts, what about all the experts who agree with the conspiracists?Most of the videos consist of TV channel footage, some of it showing reporters describing grey windowless military planes.
The hijackers had multiple identities, no background of Islamist militancy,and in some cases hedonistic leisure pursuits.Some of them are still alive , and Mohammed Atta didn't get on the plane.

Which ones are still alive, why haven't Taliban fighters or Iranian authorities paraded them for the cameras? Seems to me that if you wanted to expose the Great Satan and his infidel minions this would be a great idea. Also, they did have a background in Islamic militancy - Atta and Ziad Jarrah were captured on video attending a speech by Bin Laden in Afghanistan. I'd say that was more than just a casual dalliance. And is it really unlikely that hijackers would have multiple identities? Surely it would be more surprising if they didn't?

What keeps us self-deluding conspiracy-monkeys going is preposterous stuff like the way Flight 93 disappeared into the ground without a trace except a hijackers' personal affects, only to land safely in Cleveland an hour later.

That fact has been comprehensively discredited by now. It was entirely based on a piece of erroneous reportage. Passengers on the flight which did actually land at Cleveland have come forward and contradicted the conspiracy theory surrounding this particular fact.

Or the Pentagon gate footage of the small white missile hitting it-not an airliner.

A small white missile or the tip of a plane? If you see the footage from nearby CCTV you'll see that if it was a missile then it was not a small one. In fact it appeared to be significantly bigger than the gas guzzlers on a nearby road.

 

[Bigfoot73]

No it really was a small white missile or pilotless drone.More witnesses attest to seeing such a craft than to seeing an airliner.
The surviving 'hijackers' weren't militants at all - they'd just been identity theft victims.Salim al Hazmi(flight 77), Ahmed Alnami,(Flight 93), Saeed al-Ghamdi, and others. See "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin.
When Mohammed Atta was living in Florida passing the time on a floating casino his stripper girlfriend searched his belongings and found six passports all in his name but all with different photos.