Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

[sharkman]

You realize that assertion makes absolutely no sense, don't you?

If he was in the basement, how exactly woudl he know when the plane hit the tower? He was underground. He wasn't staring out the window. He wasn't watching the building on TV. He'd have absolutely no frame of reference to know when the building was actually hit for the first time.

Furthermore, lets assume your 'fantasy' scenario is correct and there was an explosion before the plane hit the building... when there is a controlled demoltion, any exposives are set off seconds before the building actually collapses, not an hour before hand. Its always amazing how the conspricy theorists make arguments about how 'unusual' it was for a building to collapse by fire, yet they're willing to accept somethign that is even more unlikely.

Good points. Why indeed are some willing to accept such bizarre theories when the truth is so obvious. But it keeps the economy going I guess, with each new product's claims:

Now with FIVE blades, each one cutting your beard even closer than the last!

[segnosaur]

....the whole thing stinks - Building 7 fell down - for no logical reason.

Yup, no reason at all...

Except for the 10 story hole in the building.

Yup, no reason except for the 10 story hole.

Oh, and the fires that burned for many hours. But apart from the 10 story hole in the building and the fires that burned for hours and hours there was no logical reason.

[tango]

Yup, no reason at all...

Except for the 10 story hole in the building.

Yup, no reason except for the 10 story hole.

Oh, and the fires that burned for many hours. But apart from the 10 story hole in the building and the fires that burned for hours and hours there was no logical reason.

I saw a picture of that hole, and it's really weird: They claim it was caused by debris falling from the other tower, but there is no debris in the hole.

Neither is there any explanation for how the fires were caused. hmm...

[benny]

Instead of wasting your time looking at various videos (with their often contradictory 'evidence'), here's a suggestion...

If you want to convince people it was an inside job, sit down and try to actually develop a real plan about how it would be pulled off. And provide details... how many (and who) would have to be involved with NORAD, with the police/fire department, politicians, and other 'insiders'. Give it a try. Good chance you'll quickly give up and return to watching videos made by idiots who have no actual knowledge or reputation making claims about 'inside jobs'.

I've never seen any conspirisy theorist develop even a basic rudimentary explaination about what happened on 9/11. Until someone actually does, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on.

Given the irrational relationship naïve people have toward reality, naivety will not disappear because a so-called conspiracy has been proven.

[lit_schaeffer]

As soon as someone explains why building 7 at the WTC, which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint on September 11th, I will stop believing the 'officially unaccepted conspiracy theory' and start believing in the 'officially accepted conspiracy theory'.

In the interval, a cursory look through the thread would seem to indicate that the initial premis of this thread, the discovery of thermitic residue, has been at least called into question, if not discredited.

[segnosaur]

Its always amazing how the conspricy theorists make arguments about how 'unusual' it was for a building to collapse by fire, yet they're willing to accept somethign that is even more unlikely.

You should stop calling conspiracy theorists people who simply are not naïve enough to believe rulers cannot do that kind of things to a few of their subjects and national symbols when it comes to legitimizing what they think will become overwhelmingly important national security matters in the long run.

Well, I could have used the term 'tr00ther', or 'tin-foil-hat brigade'. I thought 'conspiricy theorist' would be a little less insulting.

And there's no need to believe the 'rulers'. After all, the 'explosives' theory has been rejected in every respectable peer reviewed engineering journal, and I doubt most people would believe structural engineers are part of the 'ruling class'. You see, while you like to point to the 'rulers' and suggest they are trying to do something immoral/illegal for their own benefit, you have to account for the fact that hundreds if not thousands of every, ordinary scientists, emergency workers, military people, etc. have also rejected your conspiricies, even though they don't really have much to benifit from teh situation.

And you still haven't addressed the actual point I made... how so many 'conspiricy theorists' talk about how strange it was to have those buildings collapse the way they did, but ignore how it would even be stranger to have explostions set off and have them still standing for an hour.

[benny]

And there's no need to believe the 'rulers'. After all, the 'explosives' theory has been rejected in every respectable peer reviewed engineering journal, and I doubt most people would believe structural engineers are part of the 'ruling class'. You see, while you like to point to the 'rulers' and suggest they are trying to do something immoral/illegal for their own benefit, you have to account for the fact that hundreds if not thousands of every, ordinary scientists, emergency workers, military people, etc. have also rejected your conspiricies, even though they don't really have much to benifit from teh situation.

Never underestimate all the benefits of staying asleep.

[lit_schaeffer]

If explosives were used, it was to immediately cause the collapse, not to fake a plane impact. I don't know that this happened. My point would be that we don't know what happened, and thanks to the destruction of the evidence, and the absence of any interest on the part of the American people or government in an independent inquiry, we probably never will.

As to the remark about 'they asked me to join and i said no', is it realistic to think that the question to the future conspirator would be "hey, you want to help fake an attack on America and kill several thousand of your countrymen?"

I doubt anyone would be aware of any plot until they were committed.

[segnosaur]

Oh, and the fires that burned for many hours. But apart from the 10 story hole in the building and the fires that burned for hours and hours there was no logical reason

I saw a picture of that hole, and it's really weird: They claim it was caused by debris falling from the other tower, but there is no debris in the hole.

So, how EXACTLY do you think the hole got there? Termites?

That doesn't even fit in with the rest of the 'explosives' theory. Since when has any controlled demoliton ever blown up a big hole in a building, and THEN destroyed it via controlled demolition?

And the fact that you didn't see any debris isn't really relevant... skyscrapers often have frameworks that use very little volume (remember, the 2 towers ended up collapsing into a pile only a few stories tall, so any debris that would have hit the building would not have had to take up a significant volume.

Oh, and if you're complaing that you didn't see any debris, then what exactly do you think happened to the debris from WTC7 itself? Do you think it was carted away before any pictures were taken and before the collapse?

Neither is there any explanation for how the fires were caused. hmm...

Well, you had 2 large buildings that have just been hit by planes filled with volitile jet fuel. You have 2 towers right next to WTC7 that had their own fires buring for several hours.

So what makes more sense, that some of the debris coming from the 2 towers may have started an office fire (which was able to spread thanks to deisel fuel stored on site), or that some massive organization managed to sneak in tons of explosives, either on 9/11 (with hundreds of civilians, fire fighters, etc. as potential witnesses) or some tme before (in which case hundreds of office workers could have potentially found the explosives before 9/11.)

Hmmm... a few pieces of flaming wreckage from an already burning building or a conspiricy of hundreds...

[benny]

Also never underestimate the power of nightmares to contravene the laws of physics.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/powerofnightmares

[segnosaur]

As soon as someone explains why building 7 at the WTC, which had not been hit by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint on September 11th, I will stop believing the 'officially unaccepted conspiracy theory' and start believing in the 'officially accepted conspiracy theory'.

First of all, the towers didn't exactly collapse into their own 'footprint'. The collapse of all 3 towers was messy, and the collapse of WTC7 actually damaged several surrounding buildings. If it were being carried out by a 'controlled demoliton', it was a lot messier than any other controlled demolition.

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/WTC7#.22I...wn_footprint.22

Secondly, we know why the tower collapsed... damage to WTC7 from one of the towers collapse destroyed some of the supports resulting in added stress. Fire fueled by deisel fuel kept on site kept the building burning for hours.

The fact is, the fire department was keeping track of it, and they will point out that there were signs INSIDE the building on the afternoon of 9/11 that the building was going to collapse (e.g. shifting beams, etc.) If it were a controlled demolition, the firemen would not have observed that.

If explosives were used, it was to immediately cause the collapse, not to fake a plane impact. I don't know that this happened. My point would be that we don't know what happened, and thanks to the destruction of the evidence, and the absence of any interest on the part of the American people or government in an independent inquiry, we probably never will.

Why waste time/money on an 'independent inquiry' when we have pretty much the entire scientific and engineering community agreeing that the collapse was NOT due to explosives?

As to the remark about 'they asked me to join and i said no', is it realistic to think that the question to the future conspirator would be "hey, you want to help fake an attack on America and kill several thousand of your countrymen?"

I doubt anyone would be aware of any plot until they were committed.

Regardless of what they were told at the beginning, once they were told what the 'plot' was, they would, if they had any sort of consience, could have blown the whistle. Not one has.

Do you think there's some sort of magical 'commitment' point at which people loose all ability to think morally?

[segnosaur]

And there's no need to believe the 'rulers'. After all, the 'explosives' theory has been rejected in every respectable peer reviewed engineering journal, and I doubt most people would believe structural engineers are part of the 'ruling class'. You see, while you like to point to the 'rulers' and suggest they are trying to do something immoral/illegal for their own benefit, you have to account for the fact that hundreds if not thousands of every, ordinary scientists, emergency workers, military people, etc. have also rejected your conspiricies, even though they don't really have much to benifit from teh situation.

Never underestimate all the benefits of staying asleep.

Yup, the hundreds if not thousands of people who actually would have the qualifications to detect any sort of problem decide to 'stay asleep'....

Yet somehow some people who are totally unqualified to make any sort of technical analysis decide that something's wrong....

What makes more logical sense... that perhaps the hundreds or thousands of people were doing honest and accurate work, or that a small number of unqualified individuals simply got their facts wrong?

[segnosaur]

If you want to convince people it was an inside job, sit down and try to actually develop a real plan about how it would be pulled off. And provide details... how many (and who) would have to be involved with NORAD, with the police/fire department, politicians, and other 'insiders'

Given the irrational relationship naïve people have toward reality, naivety will not disappear because a so-called conspiracy has been proven.

Of course you never even came close to 'proving' your conspiricy.

I guess running around making blind allegations and suggesting people are 'asleep' is easier than actually putting the intellectual effort in to coming up with an actual conspiracy plan that makes sense.

[benny]

Given the irrational relationship naïve people have toward reality, naivety will not disappear because a so-called conspiracy has been proven.

Of course you never even came close to 'proving' your conspiricy.

I guess running around making blind allegations and suggesting people are 'asleep' is easier than actually putting the intellectual effort in to coming up with an actual conspiracy plan that makes sense.

The only persons who have the technical skills and qualifications to kill in the egg any conspiracy-like event are psychoanalysts.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess we are done then. Because you obviously have the correct answer.

Yes, because I am open to any possibility supported by facts and corroboration, up to and including President George Bush flying the Boeing 767-200s by remote control as he read a story in class.

Put up or shut up.

[segnosaur]

This is a brand new report, authored by several academics with good credentials....

Strike one....

Lets look at the authors of that paper, shall we?

One of the people writing the report was Stephan Jones. Jones' field of study was in cold fusion, NOT in structural engineering, and NOT in chemical analysis. Furthermore, Jones has had a reputation of writing articles outside his field of expertse, such as writing papers on archeology to support his mormon beliefs (articles which were ridiculed by serious historians).

Another was Kevin Ryan. Ryan was a lab director for environmental health... NOT for structural engineering, and was NOT active as a researcher when he first got involved in 9/11.

So, NEITHER of these 2 people has 'good credentials'.

in a respectable peer-reviewed journal.

Strike two...

The journal they were published in was a vanity publisher, who allows people to pay to have articles published. This is actually the opposite of 'peer review'.

http://www.bentham.org/open/oaMembership.php

It is analysis of a variety of donated dust samples from the WTC collapse, pretty hard data and can be replicated by independent researchers.

Strike three...

There were many problems with this 'study', such as:

- The collected samples weren't exactly kept in a controlled/secure location

- There was no effort to compare the samples collected in the study with other samples taken from the same location

- The authours confuse the 'potential energy' of a substance with the 'explosiveness'

[segnosaur]

The only persons who have the technical skills and qualifications to kill in the egg any conspiracy-like event are psychoanalysts.

Your avoidance of the issue, along with your lack of ability to actually detail any sort of plot that could provide an alternative explaination about what happened on 9/11, is dualy noted.

You do realize that you're actually doing HARM to any sort of conspiracy movement, don't you?

[bush_cheney2004]

....Nato refused to go initially. The UN refused to endorse it. Canada refused to go on that basis, encountering anti-Canadianism from Republican Americans that continues to this day. I encountered it myself ... at a family wedding!

Good, because the Americans do not need Canada's permission to attack another sovereign. Besides, Canada wasn't going to do much in Iraq, as forces were tapped out for Afghanistan.

[benny]

Yes, because I am open to any possibility supported by facts and corroboration, up to and including President George Bush flying the Boeing 767-200s by remote control as he read a story in class.

Put up or shut up.

Simulating openness has become too classic a war tactic.

[bush_cheney2004]

Simulating openness has become too classic a war tactic.

Are you afraid of war tactics? Why?

[tango]

Good, because the Americans do not need Canada's permission to attack another sovereign. Besides, Canada wasn't going to do much in Iraq, as forces were tapped out for Afghanistan.

My point is it was a controversial decision even with the attack on the WTC, and certainly the American people would not have agreed to the war without the WTC attack. So there was good motivation for Bush to engineer mass destruction and maximum death.

Edited April 20, 2009 by tango

[benny]

Are you afraid of war tactics?

no

[segnosaur]

My point is it was a controversial decision even with the attack on the WTC, and certainly the American people would not have agreed to the war without the WTC attack. So there was good motivation for Bush to engineer mass destruction and maximum death.

What you haven't done is illustrated how Bush was behind the attack, and not just making use of an event caused by others...

Oh, and what exactly was supposed to be the benefit to Bush? He didn't exactly last any longer in power, the war-time spending is a detriment to getting the economy working. Bush himself was not an owner in any of the weapons companies or businesses that would benefit from the attack.

And just what do you mean by 'maximum destruction/maximum death'? If he really wanted to maximize death, why did he wait an hour before causing the towers to collapse? Heck, why not actually try to make the towers fall over sideways? Not only would you 'maximize death', but you'd also deflect the criticism of people like you who aren't structural engineers but think its 'strange' that a building would fall straight down.

[bush_cheney2004]

My point is it was a controversial decision even with the attack on the WTC, and certainly the American people would not have agreed to the war without the WTC attack. So there was good motivation for Bush to engineer mass destruction and maximum death.

Certainly helpful but definitely not required.....Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) was executed without any attack on the USA or Canada. The international controversy swarmed around "WMD", not dust piles in NYC. We also know that the Congressional Resolution authorizing war had its foundation in events stemming from fun and games with Saddam in 1991, and material breach of surrender instruments. To say that war in Iraq was not possible without 9/11 begs the question of what constitutes an attack, invasion, blockade, and special operations before March 2003.

[benny]

What you haven't done is illustrated how Bush was behind the attack, and not just making use of an event caused by others...

Oh, and what exactly was supposed to be the benefit to Bush? He didn't exactly last any longer in power, the war-time spending is a detriment to getting the economy working. Bush himself was not an owner in any of the weapons companies or businesses that would benefit from the attack.

And just what do you mean by 'maximum destruction/maximum death'? If he really wanted to maximize death, why did he wait an hour before causing the towers to collapse? Heck, why not actually try to make the towers fall over sideways? Not only would you 'maximize death', but you'd also deflect the criticism of people like you who aren't structural engineers but think its 'strange' that a building would fall straight down.

The way power is currently misused is more like: people like Cheney (neo-cons.) needed Bush only to maximize patriotism.

Edited April 20, 2009 by benny