Chomsky dispels 9/11 conspiracies with sheer logic [video]

[Jazzy]

Ahh, but you see, there was no cause for investigation, as it's been entirely obvious to everyone involved right from the start it was the inevitable result of an office fire, and thus no examination of the physical evidence was necessary whatsoever. Duh.

"Duh. What are these guys up to? They didn't even look for the explosives which we put there just in case WTC1 didn't hit WTC7."

"Duh. How were you going to set them off if WTC1 didn't hit WTC7?"

"Duh. We wooda given a reason. We wooda said the Jooves did it. Everybody wooda gone for that."

"Duh. But why did you want to blow it up?"

"Duh. We needed to make a whole lotta files get lost."

"Duh. Why didn't you just erase them?"

"Duh."

Sure.

 

[mynym]

So what exactly is "shaky" about this? It seems incredibly solid to me. Damage + fires + understandable collapse.

It seems to me like any paradigm of knowledge seems incredibly solid to its true believers.

Here is a good summary of why people have questions about NIST's incredibly solid and "obvious" explanations and simulations:

A third problem is that NIST’s answer about sulfur is a straw-man argument. The question NIST answers by referring to gypsum in the wallboard is: Why was there sulfur in the WTC dust? As we saw earlier, however, the real question is: How did sulfur enter into the intergranular structure of the steel? As Steven Jones indicated in a passage quoted earlier, if scientists at NIST “heat steel to about 1000°C in the presence of gypsum,… they will find that sulfur does not enter steel under such circumstances.” NIST, however, ignored this issue. A fourth problem with NIST’s position is that it is circular. On the one hand, as we saw in the Introduction, NIST’s lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, said at NIST’s press briefing in August 2008: “We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down.” That statement implies that NIST looked for possible evidence and found that it was absent. On the other hand, as we have also seen, NIST said in its “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” published in 2006: “NIST did not test for the residue of these [thermite] compounds.” Although this admission was not repeated in NIST’s 2008 documents about WTC 7, it was implied by its statement that finding such residues would not necessarily have been conclusive. NIST’s statement that it “did not find any evidence that explosives were used” is, therefore, deceptive.
...group of scholars observed in their “Appeal” to NIST: “t is extremely easy to ‘find no evidence’ when one is not looking for evidence.” The circularity in NIST’s position was pointed out by journalist Jennifer Abel of the Hartford Advocate in a story in which she discussed an interview she had with Michael Newman, spokesman for NIST’s Department of Public and Business Affairs. Abel asked: “[W]hat about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?” Newman replied: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.” In response to this strange answer, Abel asked the obvious question: “But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?” Newman then responded with a still stranger statement: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time… and the taxpayers’ money.” Newman’s obviously circular position illustrates in a humorous fashion—or at least it would be humorous if so much were not at stake—NIST’s refusal to follow the scientific method’s empirical dimension, which entails that a theory, to be truly scientific, must do justice to all of the evidence that might be relevant. NIST’s failure to test for signs that thermite had been used is even more inexcusable in light of the fact that the Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which is put out by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), says that, in seeking to determine the cause of a fire, investigators should look for evidence of accelerants, which are any substances that could be used to ignite, and/or accelerate the progress of, a fire.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by David Griffin)

 

[Grieves]

Nice Looney Toons routine there, Jazz... glad to have you back.
So failing to examine the physical evidence of a crime is ok because an explosives scenario = silly, so why bother?

 

[hiper]

The evidence I base my understand on is:

A) Planes flew into the buildings, causing damage and starting fires
B) WCT 1&2 collapsed after the fires had burned for about an hour
C) Their collapse is physically consistent with a progressive collapse
D) WTC7 was damaged by the collapse of WTC1 and several fires were started
E) WTC7 collapsed after the fire had burned for several hours
F) The collapse looks like an internal collapse around the column with longest spans, followed by the skin buckling.

So what exactly is "shaky" about this? It seems incredibly solid to me. Damage + fires + understandable collapse.

1) The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of 1 or more 707 jet's. They were over-engineered.
2) Yet we see both of them totally collapse in an eerily similar fashion.
3) WTC 7 was not hit by a plane... it totally collapses due to fire we are told.
4) We witnessed the greatest removal and destruction of evidence in history.
5) NIST not investigating any physical WTC7 evidence
6) there has not been released a video of the boeing hitting the pentagon
7) insider trading on the affected airlines
8) war games on the same day

yes incredibly solid...

 

[mynym]

Think about it this way, they could have saved everyone a lot of aggravation if they had just investigated for explosives.

 

[Cairenn]

Come on guys, answer my questions.

Without a reasonable answer to them, there is absolutely no reason that they needed to look for explosives.

 

[Grieves]

Watch the video I linked too Cairenn, it provides you the requested cast of shady characters/synopsis, as irrelevant as such things are to pointing out the blatant inadequacy of the investigation.

 

[Cairenn]

They were NOT hit by 707s. The engineering was a low speed crash with a plane on approach.

The damage done is effected by the speed. Hit a lamppost with your car at 10 miles an hour and then compare the damage done to hitting it at 100 miles an hour.

Why do think that there is a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? The plane left its mark in the building and it's wreckage was found there. WHY do you need a video of it hitting?

Since I am late comer, can you show the insider trading and evidence of the war games? Didn't the first plane hit, within a few minutes of the stock market opening? Any evidence for insider trading BEFORE the plane hit? Like the day or week before?

 

[Critical Thinker]

Think about it this way, they could have saved everyone a lot of aggravation if they had just investigated for explosives.

And if they had tested for explosives and reported that no traces of explosives were found, I suspect that the findings would be dismissed as false by the folks who believe that the 9/11 tragedy was orchestrated by the government. It is called 'moving the goalposts'.

 

[Jazzy]

Here is why people have questions about NIST's incredibly solid and "obvious" explanations and simulations:

Answered.

How did sulfur enter into the intergranular structure of the steel?

Content from External Source

As sulfate ions very easily indeed. It happens at room temperature. It and many other acidic ions cause rusting in the presence of water.

Steven Jones indicated that if scientists at NIST “heat steel to about 1000°C in the presence of gypsum they will find that sulfur does not enter steel under such circumstances.”

Content from External Source

Nor would they. It would have to be WET STEAM with a witches' brew of trace elements dissolved in it.

a theory, to be truly scientific, must do justice to all of the evidence that might be relevant

Content from External Source

The theory that explosives were used to bring down WTC7 was ruled out due to lack of any evidence whatsoever.

in seeking to determine the cause of a fire, investigators should look for evidence of accelerants

Content from External Source

They found them in large pieces of WTC1 which had struck WTC7.

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Perhaps you would like to post a copy of the letter here with provenance.

Your standards of evidence are quite high, I see. Do you hold the evidence that supports your belief in building 7 as a controlled demolition to those same standards?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

So failing to examine the physical evidence of a crime is ok because an explosives scenario = silly, so why bother?

The official story is that Tamerlan suffered major trauma to his torso after being run over by a car. They also claim he had blast injuries, possibly from one of his own bombs, and gunshot wounds that were literally too many to count.



However there is photographic evidence of suspicious blotchy red spots on his skin... hives I say. I believe this man died of a severe allergic reaction to genetically modified corn fed beef or perhaps Cheerios. Did they test for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E? So failing to examine the physical evidence of a crime is ok because an allergy scenario = silly, so why bother?

Don't pretend you don't see the red blotchy hives, they are as obvious as the controlled demolition evidence of building 7 that was never found.

 

[Jazzy]

1) The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of 1 or more 707 jets.

One. The 767 possessed thirteen times the energy of the 707. Is thirteen the right "or more"?

They were over-engineered.

collapse in an eerily similar fashion.

They look eerily similar to me, too. Speed, height, type...

WTC 7 was not hit by a plane

So we must automatically look for bombs.

We witnessed the greatest removal and destruction of evidence in history.

I thought they kept 400+ items for evidence...

NIST not investigating any physical WTC7 evidence

I thought they investigated the impact, fire, and collapse. Weren't they physical?

there has not been released a video of the boeing hitting the pentagon

Wide angle low-res cams taking 2 frames per second are hardly likely to catch something doing 800 feet per second.

insider trading on the affected airlines

Would happen anyway.

war games on the same day

Was probably OBL's idea.

yes incredibly ...

 

[JRBids]

This seems to be a problem. Caring people like Cairenn projecting their caring onto other people that don't care.

ANother problem is paranoid people seeing monsters in every corner.

 

[JRBids]

"Duh. How were you going to set them off if WTC1 didn't hit WTC7?"

I'd like to see that question answered. What cover did they plan to use if WTC1 didn't hit WTC7?

"Duh. We wooda given a reason. We wooda said the Jooves did it. Everybody wooda gone for that."

That does seem to be what one poster here is saying.

 

[Grieves]

However there is photographic evidence of suspicious blotchy red spots on his skin... hives I say. I believe this man died of a severe allergic reaction to genetically modified corn fed beef or perhaps Cheerios. Did they test for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E? So failing to examine the physical evidence of a crime is ok because an allergy scenario = silly, so why bother?

Don't pretend you don't see the red blotchy hives, they are as obvious as the controlled demolition evidence of building 7 that was never found.

That man is laying on a slab in an examination room, bound to undergo an autopsy. The literal body of evidence. Even when a man dies in a shooting, and he seems to have died of gunshot wounds, an autopsy is very, very often performed, to ascertain if/how/why the gunshot wound was the cause of death. Even without an autopsy, the body is examined and wounds carefully documented. They didn't just not test for explosives where the physical evidence is concerned, they didn't test for anything where the physical evidence is concerned, not even to prove their own theory... didn't even treat the physical evidence of the WTC 7 collapse as physical evidence in the first place, hastily vanishing it while facilitating what amounted to a quick eyeballing of the WTC 1/2 steel. The collapse of WTC 7 was the direct and costly result of a most serious criminal event. Compile a body of real evidence regarding that aspect of the crime, and present that body. If it's possible, it's required. It was entirely possible. It would still be possible now, if the evidence had not been destroyed. This is one of the reasons I refer to it as a failed investigation.

 

[Grieves]

I'd like to see that question answered. What cover did they plan to use if WTC1 didn't hit WTC7?

Given the obvious and considerable spread of the debris from the WTC towers that was sure to result from their collapses, I fail to understand how, if those collapses were planned, there'd be any doubt about debris hitting building 7. Buildings for several surrounding blocks were heavily damaged, as I understand it.

 

[JRBids]

1) The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of 1 or more 707 jet's. They were over-engineered.

THat the Twin Towers were OVERengineered is laughable. Plus they were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in the fog on the way to LaGuardia or Kennedy, low on fuel.

2) Yet we see both of them totally collapse in an eerily similar fashion.

After both were hit the same way by fully fueled planes.

3) WTC 7 was not hit by a plane... it totally collapses due to fire we are told.

Maybe you can answer the question what excuse would "they " have used if the debris had not fallen on it?

 

[Grieves]

Maybe you can answer the question what excuse would "they " have used if the debris had not fallen on it?

see above.

 

[JRBids]

Given the obvious and considerable spread of the debris from the WTC towers that was sure to result from their collapses, I fail to understand how, if those collapses were planned, there'd be any doubt about debris hitting building 7. Buildings for several surrounding blocks were heavily damaged, as I understand it.

THere were other buildings that were not hit by debris. Very possibly WTC7 could have been missed by the debris. What then? Surely someone capable of such a cunning plan must have been prepared for such a scenario.

 

[Grieves]

I don't see how its remotely possible building 7 would suffer no debris damage. It was a very large building in the immediate area. Can you explain?

 

[Landru]

1) The twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of 1 or more 707 jet's. They were over-engineered.
2) Yet we see both of them totally collapse in an eerily similar fashion.
3) WTC 7 was not hit by a plane... it totally collapses due to fire we are told.
4) We witnessed the greatest removal and destruction of evidence in history.
5) NIST not investigating any physical WTC7 evidence
6) there has not been released a video of the boeing hitting the pentagon
7) insider trading on the affected airlines
8) war games on the same day

yes incredibly solid...

1) I have never seen anything to suggest the towers could have withstood hits by more than 1 707. In any event, they withstood the impact but not the impact and the resulting fires.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
2) Because they were built the same and suffered similar damage.
3) Explained by NIST.
4) As Mick explained the first task was rescue.
5) Because they could not clearly identify steel as being exclusively from WTC-7 as has been explained to you countless times.
6) There were many eyewitnesses who saw the plane as well as the plane itself being discovered. Discussed at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1047-9-11-Did-flight-AA77-Hit-The-Pentagon?highlight=flight-77
7) Nope. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp
8) So what? Other things that happened that day. Births, deaths, people lost their virginity, the list goes on.

You really should provide some evidence in your postings or at least do a little reading around the site on topics that have already been covered.

 

[Cairenn]

I still fail to see an answer to my 3 questions.

You are demanding that a cause other than the obvious one should have been checked for, and yet you can't explain HOW your scenario could have been possible. Maybe Godzilla stepped on them, did they check for his footprints? That makes as much sense to me as your insistence on something you can't explain how it could have been set up.

 

[Landru]

That man is laying on a slab in an examination room, bound to undergo an autopsy. The literal body of evidence. Even when a man dies in a shooting, and he seems to have died of gunshot wounds, an autopsy is very, very often performed, to ascertain if/how/why the gunshot wound was the cause of death. Even without an autopsy, the body is examined and wounds carefully documented. They didn't just not test for explosives where the physical evidence is concerned, they didn't test for anything where the physical evidence is concerned, not even to prove their own theory... didn't even treat the physical evidence of the WTC 7 collapse as physical evidence in the first place, hastily vanishing it while facilitating what amounted to a quick eyeballing of the WTC 1/2 steel. The collapse of WTC 7 was the direct and costly result of a most serious criminal event. Compile a body of real evidence regarding that aspect of the crime, and present that body. If it's possible, it's required. It was entirely possible. It would still be possible now, if the evidence had not been destroyed. This is one of the reasons I refer to it as a failed investigation.

They did not have the steel that could be tracked back to WTC-7.

 

[Landru]

Think about it this way, they could have saved everyone a lot of aggravation if they had just investigated for explosives.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Content from External Source

Not that many people are aggravated.

 

[Oxymoron]

Your standards of evidence are quite high, I see. Do you hold the evidence that supports your belief in building 7 as a controlled demolition to those same standards?

Yes. Now can you please post a copy of the letter which you are championing, with appropriate provenance.

We all know that OBL is credited with many videos, statements, letters etc which have been forged. This is known as bunk. But apparently certain bunk such as that is acceptable to you if it fits with your world view.

We know there are many versions of his alleged death, (from the very people who supposedly killed him), some were he hid behind his wife begging for mercy and forgiveness... Didn't think that one out properly did they... Oh we shot him in the head anyway, didn't scan well.

Oh he was going for a gun... he was running away...

So yes if you are going to endorse such quotes, I think it only right that you should back it up.

 

[Mick West]

LOL, seriously? The first time you saw the WTC 7 collapse, did you sit back, stroke your chin, and say 'Well, that looks to me like an internal collapse around the column with the longest spans, followed by the skin buckling...!' That's what NIST told you happened, 6 years after the fact... not what it looks like. What it looks like is a terribly rapid collapse that clearly strongly resembles a demolition. We wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise.

I did not really think about it at all when I first saw it. It seemed very insignificant compared to the two towers.

Corpus delicti. Show me the failed column, the source of the collapse. Can't? Why's that? Oh, because it's been destroyed already? What an incredibly solid investigation.

Given that the east penthouse collapsed first, and then fell though the floors below it, that meant that the column under it was gone.

That column was column 79, the column with the longest floor spans.

 

[Landru]

Yes. Now can you please post a copy of the letter which you are championing, with appropriate provenance.

We all know that OBL is credited with many videos, statements, letters etc which have been forged. This is known as bunk. But apparently certain bunk such as that is acceptable to you if it fits with your world view.

We know there are many versions of his alleged death, (from the very people who supposedly killed him), some were he hid behind his wife begging for mercy and forgiveness... Didn't think that one out properly did they... Oh we shot him in the head anyway, didn't scan well.

Oh he was going for a gun... he was running away...

So yes if you are going to endorse such quotes, I think it only right that you should back it up.

Here is a CNN interview in 1998 where he declares war on US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68fExbnok4o

 

[Oxymoron]

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Content from External Source

Not that many people are aggravated.

But Landru, that has been posted many times on this forum.

It didn't cut it then and it doesn't cut it now. It is circular argument.

You post that and someone else then has to say, 'thermite doesn't make that loud noise'. Thermite could easily have been placed in lift shafts and in the crawlspaces, directly on the columns necessary without any need to disturb cosmetic wallboards etc. Access is achievable through a single ceiling panel on each level. Also the amount of thermite is not an unreasonable amount to be brought in. Plus thermite has to be ignited at extremely high temperatures and cannot be ignited by a building fire because it is not hot enough which is why they use magnesium to ignite it.

But NIST know all this so it is unreasonable not to test for it. There had already been multiple terrorist attacks with explosives (inc the 93 one) and they are used to having to deal with secondary forms of attack so why not test to make sure that terrorists were not now using thermite.

 

[Grieves]

Cairenn, you're asking for prescience. It's not going to happen, and it's not required. There are many well thought out scenarios detailing the likely parties/motives/methods. I have presented you with a decent example which you have chosen to ignore. Demanding answers to questions that can't possibly be answered outside of a hypothesis without a more thorough investigation and then claiming not having those answers negates the need for a more thorough investigation doesn't make a great deal of sense.

They did not have the steel that could be tracked back to WTC-7.

Yes, because they began disposing of that steel the night of. That being the issue. It's understandable for citizens to forget the necessities of a proper investigation during a crisis, but when those who are supposed to be conducting/supporting that investigation of that crisis forget, it's cause for concern, review, and punitive action, whether a deeper crime or simply gross negligence/dereliction is exposed and dealt with. Not only was no punitive action taken against anyone for this outrageous oversight, but it's not even regarded as an oversight in the mainstream, let alone outrageous. Someone made the decision to start disposing of steel before the investigation had even truly commenced. Maybe Bloomberg, I don't really know for sure. That decision was an obstruction of justice, even if made with the best intentions. Except for some reason, it wasn't. It's all okay. Who needs to see this failed beam? Why would they want too? I'ts not as if, even barring the criminal investigation, a physical examination of the very catalyst of a baffling collapse-due-to-fire would prove invaluable in understanding the phenomenon and preventing it in the future, right...? So where's the failed beam? Hub-caps, maybe? Cellphones? And this isn't a problem.

 

[Landru]

And is now facing indefinite detention in solitary confinement, where he steadily deteriorates, for exposing a large amount of low-level intelligence that, beyond making America look bad, has had little to no measurable impact on much of anything politically/economically/militarily, and is being held in such a state to the celebration of many, some of whom feel he should be executed. Oh yeah. That's a real supportive society you've got where whistle-blowing is concerned. Why would anyone hesitate?

He is not a whistle blower. He released classified material. He signed a statement saying he understood what the law was and what the penalty is. The "low-level intelligence" category doesn't exist in the classification community. It is against the law to release. It is admitted to releasing the material in a plea deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_manning#Guilty_plea_on_10_charges

[h=3]Guilty plea on 10 charges[/h] Further information: United States v. Bradley Manning
In December 2012 the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind, accepted terms that would allow Manning to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for a maximum sentence of 16 years. In January 2013 she ruled that any sentence should be reduced by 112 days because of his treatment at Quantico, but that the dismissal of charges was not appropriate.[71]​ On February 28, 2013, Manning pleaded guilty to 10 of the 22 charges.[4]​ Reading for over an hour from a 35-page statement, he said he had leaked the cables "to show the true cost of war."[72]​ Prosecutors will pursue a court-martial on the remaining charges, including aiding the enemy. The trial began on June 3, 2013.[5]​

Content from External Source

 

[Landru]

But Landru, that has been posted many times on this forum.

It didn't cut it then and it doesn't cut it now. It is circular argument.

You post that and someone else then has to say, 'thermite doesn't make that loud noise'. Thermite could easily have been placed in lift shafts and in the crawlspaces, directly on the columns necessary without any need to disturb cosmetic wallboards etc. Access is achievable through a single ceiling panel on each level. Also the amount of thermite is not an unreasonable amount to be brought in. Plus thermite has to be ignited at extremely high temperatures and cannot be ignited by a building fire because it is not hot enough which is why they use magnesium to ignite it.

But NIST know all this so it is unreasonable not to test for it. There had already been multiple terrorist attacks with explosives (inc the 93 one) and they are used to having to deal with secondary forms of attack so why not test to make sure that terrorists were not now using thermite.

Any evidence to back up your claims? It is not a circular argument. A point was made with no evidence and it was refuted by evidence and reintroduced (continually) with no evidence. As for thermite....wait for it....

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Content from External Source

Oxy, I don't post this stuff for you and hiper because you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I'm just removing bunk from the argument for the benefit of people that may wonder in here.

 

[Oxymoron]

Here is a CNN interview in 1998 where he declares war on US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68fExbnok4o

Yes but that is not in contention... it is the letter which is contentious and the claim that he wanted to impose a Caliphate on the world. I am not disputing that he would have liked to see a global caliphate any more than the Pope would like to see the Catholic faith all over the world. Also many other religions would like the same world coverage. They are all after converts.

There is nothing strange about his political demands that the U.S troops should get out of Saudi. Once they are in, they don't want to leave.

Now as I said before, there would be some pretty pissed off Americans if M.E troops set up bases in the U.S and set up a puppet government and started running things to suit themselves. I don't think anyone would dispute that would they.

Also at that time he was very reserved in his statement. 'Get out of Saudi or we will attack troops on our soil', it was only later that he expanded it.

 

[Cairenn]

I am asking for an explanation that would have required them to check for explosive residue.

I am NOT asking for prescience, just a solid reason they should have looked for explosive residue or Godzilla's footprints.

As long as none exists and that the destruction is explained by the fires and damage, expecting to test for explosives is nonsense.

It is literally the same thing as asking a ME to test a gunshot victim for poison.


Manning KNEW what he was doing was WRONG. I do volunteer work for a game company, checking for folks doing illegal things in the game. I had to sign a NDA before I was hired. If I went out and started telling folks how to violate the rules, they could sue me and should. He was used by Assage and abandoned by him as well. Poor naive kid. He will pay the price while Assage doesn't.

 

[Oxymoron]

Oxy, I don't post this stuff for you and hiper because you are going to believe what you are going to believe. I'm just removing bunk from the argument for the benefit of people that may wonder in here.

Lol, I think the same way as you then.

 

[MikeC]

Thermite could easily have been placed in lift shafts and in the crawlspaces, directly on the columns necessary without any need to disturb cosmetic wallboards etc. Access is achievable through a single ceiling panel on each level.

What is the analysis that shows that this would be "easily" done?

 

[Cairenn]

That wouldn't work. I have read up on what has to be done to a building to implode it, and it is a LOT more than just placing some charges around.

I have another question. How many folks in the building implosion business thinks they were imploded? Any? half a dozen? a hundred? Aren't they the experts? Do they think it could have been done the way you say it could have been?

 

[Cairenn]

That wouldn't work. I have read up on what has to be done to a building to implode it, and it is a LOT more than just placing some charges around.

I have another question. How many folks in the building implosion business thinks they were imploded? Any? half a dozen? a hundred? Aren't they the experts? Do they think it could have been done the way you say it could have been?

 

[Landru]

Lol, I think the same way as you then.

So you don't have any evidence then?

 

[Oxymoron]

I am asking for an explanation that would have required them to check for explosive residue.

I am NOT asking for prescience, just a solid reason they should have looked for explosive residue or Godzilla's footprints.

As long as none exists and that the destruction is explained by the fires and damage, expecting to test for explosives is nonsense.

It is literally the same thing as asking a ME to test a gunshot victim for poison.


Manning KNEW what he was doing was WRONG. I do volunteer work for a game company, checking for folks doing illegal things in the game. I had to sign a NDA before I was hired. If I went out and started telling folks how to violate the rules, they could sue me and should. He was used by Assage and abandoned by him as well. Poor naive kid. He will pay the price while Assage doesn't.

Are you responding to anyone in particular or will I do?

Manning was appalled at the war crimes being perpetrated on civilians, inc women and kids, on a regular basis and that is why he did it. He was sickened by the vileness of their actions. He gave nothing away that would help an enemy. He merely exposed the savagery of U.S actions which are not acceptable even under war conditions.

Manning got himself caught, (maybe deliberately), by chatting online. Nothing to do with Assange.

Assange is under despicable assault on near certain trumped up charges, just so the U.S can get their grimy little mitts on him and subject him to the same draconian repressive and dictatorial regime which is near on par with the dark days of Stalinist Russia and which they impose on anyone that dares to disagree with them. Freedom... Yeah for the psychopaths.