Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[tango]

I am more worried about why the media is ignoring stories like this or this

Ah yes ... Obama is an alien ...

“Its a very dark day for America if the President of the United States is going to use his close ties with Intergalactic Organizations to abduct his opponents and replace them with alien appeasers,” political commentator Bill O’Reilly said on his radio program Thursday night.

“If John McCain, one of the toughest S.O.B’s America has to offer, doesn’t stand a chance against Obama and his gang of alien thugs, what chance do the rest of us have? What chance does the little guy have when Obama and the alien tractor beam come knocking on your door just because you don’t agree with him?!”

And the UN finally has some ... er ... clout ...

Shortly thereafter, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a short and brazen list of demands, calling on all nations to "bow down at once to social progress."

"Tremble before the awesome might of this cooperative assembly of appointed representatives," said Ban, boldly holding a stack of diplomatic resolutions in his hand. "At last, when the United Nations calls for the development of more sustainable agricultural practices, the world at large will listen."

Added Ban, "We will no longer be ignored."

Cute ... er ... missile

I understand that people are standing back on this one.

It's friggen huge.

Recall ... He was forced to retire only for saying that the US ignored warnings and information, did not act to stop the planes.

Suggestion being ... maybe somebody rigged the mass destruction part as an add on to what they knew was in the works.

And recall ... Many people support ongoing investigation of 911 truth because they lost loved ones there.

Who opposes investigation?

Or better question ... who is suppressing investigation?

But I wait for confirmation and elaboration of this information too.

[tango]

No doubt...we need some fresh hoaxes after all these years.

Then you have seen the chain of custody documents?

Don't worry, I am sure that Alex Jones and Infowars has picked it up by now.

Yes ... Alex Jones has Prof Jones posted ...

Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

Jones points to a video (click here to watch) which shows a bright yellow molten substance dripping from the south tower minutes before its collapse. Government investigators claimed that this was aluminum from Flight 175 but Jones is adamant that aluminum is silvery in appearance and doesn't turn yellow.

Jones also told the Deseret News that sulfur traces found at ground zero indicates the thermite was combined with sulphur to make it burn even hotter than the normal 2500 degrees Celsius.

Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.

Watch the following video and observe how thermite completely melts a car engine in a matter of seconds, without the addition of sulphur, and also completely resists neutralization by liquid nitrogen. Notice how the dripping substance is identical to that seen in the south tower video.

So does Ron Paul ...

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88818

[Riverwind]

Or better question ... who is suppressing investigation?

No one. The dems are firmly in charge now. The suggestion that Bush and co have some death grip on the thousands of people who would have evidence of the plot is absurd.

No whistle blower - no case. end of story.

[tango]

No one. The dems are firmly in charge now. The suggestion that Bush and co have some death grip on the thousands of people who would have evidence of the plot is absurd.

No whistle blower - no case. end of story.

The theory is not that 'Bush'/CIAorganized the whole thing.

The theory is that he knew what was going to happen, and rather than trying to stop it he capitalized on it ... turning terrorism into mass destruction.

[DogOnPorch]

The theory is not that 'Bush'/CIAorganized the whole thing.

The theory is that he knew what was going to happen, and rather than trying to stop it he capitalized on it ... turning terrorism into mass destruction.

Cite non-wingnut source?

[Wilber]

The theory is not that 'Bush'/CIAorganized the whole thing.

The theory is that he knew what was going to happen, and rather than trying to stop it he capitalized on it ... turning terrorism into mass destruction.

So how does Thermite figure in that theory?

[tango]

So how does Thermite figure in that theory?

In theory, the WTC was rigged with explosives (super-thermite), which would react to the burning jet fuel to ensure maximum destruction when the planes hit.

[bush_cheney2004]

In theory, the WTC was rigged with explosives (super-thermite), which would react to the burning jet fuel to ensure maximum destruction when the planes hit.

Thermite is not an explosive....burn rate is not fast enough.

[Wilber]

In theory, the WTC was rigged with explosives (super-thermite), which would react to the burning jet fuel to ensure maximum destruction when the planes hit.

Who rigged them?

[Moonlight Graham]

1. Why would the gov't go to so much trouble to secretly destroy the WTC towers, and yet they would not go to the trouble to plant bogus evidence of WMD's in Iraq to justify their war? The latter would be 100x easier to pull off.

2. Why would they even bother to destroy the towers? Two airplanes flew into the towers. Even if they planes did not cause the towers to collapse, it still would be enough (along with the plane that flew into to the Pentagon) for the Bush admin to wage war against al-Qaeda/terrorists.

3. Why would the gov't destroy the 3rd tower if they didn't fly a plane into it?

4. The Bush admin was filled with inept morons, there is virtually no way they would be capable of pulling off a scheme this complex.

[tango]

Thermite is not an explosive....burn rate is not fast enough.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Download full report.

[tango]

1. Why would the gov't go to so much trouble to secretly destroy the WTC towers, and yet they would not go to the trouble to plant bogus evidence of WMD's in Iraq to justify their war? The latter would be 100x easier to pull off.

UN oversight?

2. Why would they even bother to destroy the towers? Two airplanes flew into the towers. Even if they planes did not cause the towers to collapse, it still would be enough (along with the plane that flew into to the Pentagon) for the Bush admin to wage war against al-Qaeda/terrorists.

Perhaps they wanted to make sure enough people died?

3. Why would the gov't destroy the 3rd tower if they didn't fly a plane into it?

Because the CIA was housed there and they needed to get rid of evidence?

4. The Bush admin was filled with inept morons, there is virtually no way they would be capable of pulling off a scheme this complex.

True. It couldn't have passed a real inspection.

The dust was never analyzed in the official investigation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Download full report.

OK...but the methane gas in my lower intestine is more explosive than thermite.

[Michael Hardner]

tango,

I'm glad that you make an honest attempt to answer questions. Hopefully, you'll eventually see that this conspiracy makes no sense. There's enough stupidity in the world to make these conspiracies impossible to achieve, and also unnecessary to execute. Bush Sr. invaded Panama by telling everybody he was a dope dealer. That's it.

Your answers:

Perhaps they wanted to make sure enough people died?

There could have been many more killed than 3000. They could have planted explosives in the base of the tower and used car bombs, as happened the 1st time at the WTC.

Because the CIA was housed there and they needed to get rid of evidence?

There was an office in the WTC but why destroy the whole building to get rid of evidence ? Is that the best way to ensure that it gets done ? Seems like overkill to me.

[tango]

It's hard to get your head around killing your own citizens to justify a war, and then covering it up. However, it is possible it has happened before:

http://www.mailstar.net/pearl-harbor.html

1941

"It is not believed," wrote McCollum, "that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado.''31

His solution to the political stalemate: use the eight proposed actions to provoke Japan into committing an overt act of war against the United States, thus triggering military responses from the two other signers of the Tripartite Pact.

...

In the "illogical basing of the fleet at Hawaii," Admiral Richardson saw a disaster in the making. He was responsible for 69,000 sailors under his Pacific command, and he grew increasingly alarmed at using them and his 217 ships in what he saw as a provocative scheme. He asked, "Are we here as a stepping-off place for belligerent activity?"48

Exasperated, he complained, "The President and Mr. Hull [secretary of State Cordell Hull] never seem to take it into consideration that Japan is led by military men, who evaluate military moves, largely on a military basis."49 Richardson missed the point. White House strategy was based precisely on the premise that Japan's militant right wing would push for an act of force against the United States.

Edited April 17, 2009 by tango

[tango]

tango,

I'm glad that you make an honest attempt to answer questions. Hopefully, you'll eventually see that this conspiracy makes no sense. There's enough stupidity in the world to make these conspiracies impossible to achieve, and also unnecessary to execute. Bush Sr. invaded Panama by telling everybody he was a dope dealer. That's it.

Your answers:

There could have been many more killed than 3000. They could have planted explosives in the base of the tower and used car bombs, as happened the 1st time at the WTC.

There was an office in the WTC but why destroy the whole building to get rid of evidence ? Is that the best way to ensure that it gets done ? Seems like overkill to me.

Well, after two towers have come down, what's another?

http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

[Riverwind]

Well, after two towers have come down, what's another?

Any aspiring spy fiction writer can come up with all kinds scenarios which 'explain' almost anything. But the real issue is whether there is any direct evidence. 8 years after the event there is absolutely nothing. Without *direct* evidence (i.e. a witness who participated in some part of the plot) then the circumstantial evidence means nothing because there are always other explanations for circumstantial evidence.

[tango]

Any aspiring spy fiction writer can come up with all kinds scenarios which 'explain' almost anything. But the real issue is whether there is any direct evidence. 8 years after the event there is absolutely nothing. Without *direct* evidence (i.e. a witness who participated in some part of the plot) then the circumstantial evidence means nothing because there are always other explanations for circumstantial evidence.

Nothing is proven, but the facts are becoming difficult to explain away.

And see my post above re 'maybe it has happened before'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nothing is proven, but the facts are becoming difficult to explain away.

And see my post above re 'maybe it has happened before'.

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

In God We Trust...all others bring real data/evidence...not wild ass guesses please.

[tango]

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

In God We Trust...all others bring real data/evidence...not wild ass guesses please.

Hmm ... attacking instead of presenting your take on the report?

Can you not explain it away, then?

Geez ... and I was counting on you to debunk it!

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm ... attacking instead of presenting your take on the report?

Can you not explain it away, then?

Geez ... and I was counting on you to debunk it!

If I am glib about your astounding "report", it's because we have already been down this path before...years ago.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

There is no chain of custody for a sample of unknown origin. Other plausible debris field explanations were not explored with equal vigor. Where is the peer review process and results?

[tango]

If I am glib about your astounding "report", it's because we have already been down this path before...years ago.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

There is no chain of custody for a sample of unknown origin. Other plausible debris field explanations were not explored with equal vigor. Where is the peer review process and results?

Oh I think we're far beyond that picture now.

The origins of the various samples are documented, which you would know if you read the report. (chicken?)

Where is the 'official' analysis of the dust?

[Riverwind]

Nothing is proven, but the facts are becoming difficult to explain away.

According who? A small group of dedicated conspiracy theorists? The vast majority of people understand that complex events like a plane crash and a building collapse will inevitably have a long list of odd and unexplained bits and pieces. That is why the existence of the unexplained bits and pieces means nothing without *corroborating direct* evidence? Find the *direct* evidence of a conspiracy and the circumstantial evidence might mean something. Until then it means absolutely nothing. Edited April 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh I think we're far beyond that picture now.

The origins of the various samples are documented, which you would know if you read the report. (chicken?)

Where is the 'official' analysis of the dust?

The official investigations are complete and don't allege anything....see the difference?

Facts are more interesting than conjecture and book-selling conspiracies.

[tango]

According who? A small group of dedicated conspiracy theorists? The vast majority of people understand that complex events like a plane crash and a building collapse will inevitably have a long list of odd and unexplained bits and pieces. That is why the existence of the unexplained bits and pieces means nothing without *corroborating direct* evidence? Where is it?

It means quite a bit if there were explosives in there, covered up by the 'official' investigation.

What is your critique of the report on the dust samples?