Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[benny]

So you admit that they 'absolutely' need huge piles of explosives...

All to the contrary! I have an open mind so I'm not supposing anything on quantity.

Edited April 23, 2009 by benny

[segnosaur]

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

(Well, maybe you can't actually do it, but I like to remind people that you can't to show how much nonsense your posts include)

What happened for sure is the destruction of documents of interest (for those interested to know the truth about 9/11) in the collapse of WTC7.

Ah yes, that old piece of cr*p. (One that conspricy theorists love to trot out... that WTC7 was destroyed to hide some secret documents.)

So, tell me, what else was in WTC7? Did they also store their mind-control ray there? You know, the ray that they would need to make the thousands of people who would have noticed agents wiring the building to collapse that there saw nothing? The one they'd need to convice the hundreds of engineers who have studied the collapse to ignore their years of experience and claim that explosive were not necessary? The one they'd have to use on the firemen to get them to report that they saw signs of collapse long before WTC7 fell?

That's some wicked Mind control ray.

[segnosaur]

So you admit that they 'absolutely' need huge piles of explosives...

All to the contrary! I have an open mind so I'm not supposing anything on quantity.

So, you're assuming that there's some sort of magical explosive that can demolish a building even though, with our current best technology it would require tons.

Why not just argue that it was aliens? Or maybe the magical mind control ray that they needed to use on everyone also had a 'death ray' setting?

Hey, keep an open mind!

[sharkman]

So, tell me, what else was in WTC7? Did they also store their mind-control ray there? You know, the ray that they would need to make the thousands of people who would have noticed agents wiring the building to collapse that there saw nothing? The one they'd need to convice the hundreds of engineers who have studied the collapse to ignore their years of experience and claim that explosive were not necessary? The one they'd have to use on the firemen to get them to report that they saw signs of collapse long before WTC7 fell?

That's some wicked Mind control ray.

It's obvious the controllers of the mind ray are now having fun with it. All these people on forums with the wacky conspiracy theories. Personally, it's not that funny to me, but the funny bone is a curious thing.

[tango]

O'Neil died on September 11. Not exactly evidence of an internal conspiracy if the people who would have been involved get killed.

Not to mention the fact that you were wrong on your original claim that Hauer was in charge of 'renovations' at the WTC. And not to mention the fact that any sort of plan to plan explosives would also require dozens if not hundreds of people to actually carry on the work, and would require thousands of people to overlook any sort of 'suspicious' activity.

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

It's impossible, and unnecessary, for us to do so. We can't know all the truths. However, it is quite possible to generate an alternative explanation that creates sufficient and reasonable doubt about the 'official' story to warrant further, independent investigation.

The independent evidence of explosions, possible explosives in the dust, and access to the service floors, among other things, creates that reasonable doubt, imo, unless one has a personal/professional/political stake and chooses to avoid any further investigation.

If the official story is true, then there is nothing to be lost by further investigation which can only prove that right.

[benny]

the thousands of people who would have noticed agents wiring the building to collapse that there saw nothing? The one they'd need to convice the hundreds of engineers who have studied the collapse to ignore their years of experience and claim that explosive were not necessary?

These are all quantities. Rest if you are tired!

[segnosaur]

You know, I'm still waiting for your big huge explaination about what happend and when, and who was involved in pulling off 9/11. Come on, we're waiting. You can do it.

It's impossible, and unnecessary, for us to do so.

Actually, yes it is necessary.

Ever hear of Occam's razor? The basic premise is "The simplest solution is usually the right one". (Actually, there's a big long explaination for what it is, but the above definition is simple enough.)

So, what you have to do is take a complete conspiricy theory, and look at all the faults. Compare that to the "official" version. Even if you think some of the elements of the "official" theory are suspect (they're not; for the most part conspiracy theorists are usually just ignorant), if a complete 'conspiricy theory' has even more problems than the official version, it should be discounted.

We can't know all the truths.

Nobody is suggestiong we know "all" the truths. But we'd expect at least a basic description in broad enough strokes.

Heck, there are even parts of the "official" story that are unknown... for example, we don't know if the hijackers were armed only with utility knives, or if they had guns/bombs too. But in that situation, all of the unknowns turn out to be irrelevant. Whether a hijacker had a knife or a bomb, we know the same thing: security at the Boston airport sucks.

On the other hand, every time a conspiricy theorist spouts off with one of their morinic ideas, it makes the entire explaination just totally bizarre. Think the towers were brought down with explosives? Then you have to explain how those explosives got there, how they would have avoided detection, why none of the conspirators has ever confessed, why firemen saw signs of collapse in WTC7, etc. Such things are not "irrelevancies"... they end up putting the whole conspiricy theory into bizzaro world.

However, it is quite possible to generate an alternative explanation that creates sufficient and reasonable doubt about the 'official' story to warrant further, independent investigation.

If it were possible, howcome nobody has ever done so? How come all that the conspiricy theorists can do is point to videos featuring junk science by unqualified people who put out ideas that usually end up conflicting with OTHER conspricy theorists?

The independent evidence of explosions,

An explaination for which has already been given...

possible explosives in the dust...

The operative word there is "possible"... that analysis of "explosive dust" was A: done by people who were not qualified, B: did not appear in a proper peer-reviewed paper, and C: contained many fundamental flaws (such as collection and storage of the 'dust' by non-scientific people, without proper controls, and a proper comparison of the material with material that was known to be at the site.)

, and access to the service floors

Which of course ignores that while any conspratorators might have had access to those floors, so would maintenance staff at the WTC.

, among other things, creates that reasonable doubt, imo,

The key part of the above phrase is 'imo' (I assme that means 'in my opinion', not "I'm Moronic, obviously", or something similar).

You see, the opinion of someone who is A: scientifically unqualified, and B: hasn't exhibited any ability to think skeptically or apply criitical thinking isn't very convincing, at least to me. About the only people it would install reasonable doubt in are other people who similarly lack scientific expertise and/or critical thinking skills.

If the official story is true, then there is nothing to be lost by further investigation which can only prove that right.

Actually, there IS somethign to be lost... namely, time and money that can be used to actually further human knowledge, catch actual real terrorists, etc. (And, of course, regardless of how much time and money were spent on such an investigation, I'm sure people like you would claim "The conspricy interferred in the investigation! Do over!)

So, tell me, what else do you think should be investigated? Should we launch a scientific investigation into whether the earth is really round? After all, it COULD actually be flat. What would be lost if we launch an investigation?

[segnosaur]

the thousands of people who would have noticed agents wiring the building to collapse that there saw nothing? The one they'd need to convice the hundreds of engineers who have studied the collapse to ignore their years of experience and claim that explosive were not necessary?

These are all quantities.

What a moronic statement. Really, it is. Really illustrates a lack of critical thinking on your part.

I'm rather beginning to suspect you're a troll. Or some sort of spam-bot, putting random phrases in posts. Not like you've actually responded intelligently to any of my statements.

So, you are willing to ignore the question (of why so many people didn't see anythig strange on 9/11, of why so many engineers discount explosives) because those are "just quantities". What else are you about to discount because they're "Just quantities"?

Should we discount the fact that the earth is round, and immediately launch an investigation into the shape of the earth in order to decide whether flat or round-earthers are correct? After all, while >99.9% of scientists, geologists, and airline pilots believe the earth is round, those are just quantities. Maybe its a giant conspiricy, orchistrated by an evil group composed of geologists and globe manufacturers to convince us the earth is round.

[GostHacked]

I had been staying away from an even crazier idea of holograms. I had checked out a couple vids online, that showed multiple angles from news choppers that day .... to me that was the kookiest thing going aside from explosives ect.

So far, I have not been able to find any 'amature' footage of a plane crashing into the WTC2.

Yeah, i know. tinfoil hat.

[tango]

So, what you have to do is take a complete conspiricy theory, and look at all the faults. Compare that to the "official" version. Even if you think some of the elements of the "official" theory are suspect (they're not; for the most part conspiracy theorists are usually just ignorant), if a complete 'conspiricy theory' has even more problems than the official version, it should be discounted.

Yes, I think an independent invesitgation should do that.

Also, clearly there are people who stand to lose from that investigation who would, no doubt, try to discourage others from demanding a re-investigation, so I discount such objections.

[benny]

These are all quantities.

What a moronic statement. Really, it is. Really illustrates a lack of critical thinking on your part.

I'm rather beginning to suspect you're a troll. Or some sort of spam-bot, putting random phrases in posts. Not like you've actually responded intelligently to any of my statements.

So, you are willing to ignore the question (of why so many people didn't see anythig strange on 9/11, of why so many engineers discount explosives) because those are "just quantities". What else are you about to discount because they're "Just quantities"?

Should we discount the fact that the earth is round, and immediately launch an investigation into the shape of the earth in order to decide whether flat or round-earthers are correct? After all, while >99.9% of scientists, geologists, and airline pilots believe the earth is round, those are just quantities. Maybe its a giant conspiricy, orchistrated by an evil group composed of geologists and globe manufacturers to convince us the earth is round.

- Engineers looking at the same NIST simulation model count for one.

- 118 people witness something like explosions in WTC1, 2 and 7.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/article...TradeCenter.pdf

[segnosaur]

- Engineers looking at the same NIST simulation model count for one.

Ummm... no, not really. Not sure where exactly you get your math from.

That body of engineers comprises hundreds of specialists, working both directly with the NIST, and others independently on their own academic work, as well as referees on various journals.

Also see you've forgotten the firement that actually witnessed signs of structural failure in WTC7 before the collapse. But hey, I'm used to sloppy thinking from you.

- 118 people witness something like explosions in WTC1, 2 and 7.

The operative word in the above sentence is 'like'. As in "something like explosions". This doesn't necessarily mean there WERE explosions, or that the building was actually destroyed through controlled demolitions.

This has already been explained in a previoius post. Congratulations. Not only have you shown a lack of critical thinking skills, you have been shown to have the memory capacity of a goldfish.

[segnosaur]

So, what you have to do is take a complete conspiricy theory, and look at all the faults. Compare that to the "official" version. Even if you think some of the elements of the "official" theory are suspect (they're not; for the most part conspiracy theorists are usually just ignorant), if a complete 'conspiricy theory' has even more problems than the official version, it should be discounted.

Yes, I think an independent invesitgation should do that.

You know, conspiricy believers tend to think there are a lot of qualified people in their movement. (There aren't... most actually range between unqualified to positively moronic.) They point to their little "journals", and to the supposed "experts" in their little videos.

So how come, with all those supposed "experts", have they not been able to come up with a relatively complete theory?

Also, clearly there are people who stand to lose from that investigation who would, no doubt, try to discourage others from demanding a re-investigation, so I discount such objections.

So, tell me, what else do you think should be investigated? Should we launch a scientific investigation into whether the earth is really round? After all, it COULD actually be flat. What would be lost if we launch an investigation?

The only people who would lose from such a re-investigation are those people that manufacture globes!

So, I expect to see you put just as much of a demand into the re-investigation of the shape of the earth as you put into demanding another investigation into 9/11. Don't take no for an answer! The oppression of the globe-makers must be stopped!

[benny]

Ummm... no, not really. Not sure where exactly you get your math from.

That body of engineers comprises hundreds of specialists, working both directly with the NIST, and others independently on their own academic work, as well as referees on various journals.

Also, any simulation model is worthless for a matchless event like 9/11.

[segnosaur]

Also, any simulation model is worthless for a matchless event like 9/11.

I see...

So, can you point me to the institution where you got your degree in structural engineering from?

Do got to wonder why exactly you're calling it a 'matchless event'... I figured having a plane impacting a highrise at several hundred km/h, with a large load of jet fuel would be enough to explain how a fire might start even without matches.

Or do you think that when a plane hits a building it should just sit there?

[benny]

I see...

So, can you point me to the institution where you got your degree in structural engineering from?

Do got to wonder why exactly you're calling it a 'matchless event'... I figured having a plane impacting a highrise at several hundred km/h, with a large load of jet fuel would be enough to explain how a fire might start even without matches.

Or do you think that when a plane hits a building it should just sit there?

Any investigator knows a fire can hide the real crime motive.

[segnosaur]

Any investigator knows a fire can hide the real crime motive.

And I'm pretty sure most investigators know that ramming a plane filled with jet fuel into a building is going to cause significant damange and perhaps contribute to structural failure.

Tell me, do you think Aliens could be responsible for 9/11? After all, you seem to think you should keep an open mind....

[benny]

And I'm pretty sure most investigators know that ramming a plane filled with jet fuel into a building is going to cause significant damange and perhaps contribute to structural failure.

Tell me, do you think Aliens could be responsible for 9/11? After all, you seem to think you should keep an open mind....

If the plane was filled with fuel, it can only have taken off nearby!

[DogOnPorch]

Near-by aliens.

[benny]

Near-by aliens.

Badiou

[bush_cheney2004]

If the plane was filled with fuel, it can only have taken off nearby!

Not true....the "planes" could have been fitted with in-flight refueling probes.

[segnosaur]

Not true....the "planes" could have been fitted with in-flight refueling probes.

And the planes would have been refuled by UFOs on their way back to Roswell.

[Michael Hardner]

What happened for sure is the destruction of documents of interest (for those interested to know the truth about 9/11) in the collapse of WTC7.

I'm not sure if I have this right - but it seems like what's being said here is that documents concerning the conspiracy itself were destroyed in WTC 7.

This causes me some thoughts:

1) Is the idea that somebody came up with a plan to blow up WTC 7 by *first* flying two jets into WTC 1 and 2 ?

2) Is blowing up a building the best way to ensure that a document somewhere inside it never sees the light of day ?

3) Is someone actually implying that the entire conspiracy was set in motion so that it could destroy the very documents proving the conspiracy ?

There's a sort of beautiful, insane, truther symmetry in 3) when you think about it...

[tango]

I'm not sure if I have this right - but it seems like what's being said here is that documents concerning the conspiracy itself were destroyed in WTC 7.

This causes me some thoughts:

1) Is the idea that somebody came up with a plan to blow up WTC 7 by *first* flying two jets into WTC 1 and 2 ?

2) Is blowing up a building the best way to ensure that a document somewhere inside it never sees the light of day ?

3) Is someone actually implying that the entire conspiracy was set in motion so that it could destroy the very documents proving the conspiracy ?

There's a sort of beautiful, insane, truther symmetry in 3) when you think about it...

Lots of questions ... few answers ... yet. Obviously an independent investigation is necessary.

[bush_cheney2004]

Lots of questions ... few answers ... yet. Obviously an independent investigation is necessary.

Independent from what? Are you suggesting Martians...perhaps?