Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

16 minutes ago, Omni said:

One of the designers I heard interviewd said to this day we couldn't build a tower that would withstand a 767 collision at double that speed. That's roughly the speeds the airliners hit the buildings.

I had already said that I was willing to allow that the "airliners" hit at whatever speed you said [within reason]. I said, and I quote,

"Allowing everything up to the initiation of collapse, it is still absolutely impossible for the three towers to fall at free fall and at continued acceleration."

Why was there molten steel and vaporized steel at WTC? And molten molybdenum? And vaporized lead?

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I had already said that I was willing to allow that the "airliners" hit at whatever speed you said [within reason]. I said, and I quote,

"Allowing everything up to the initiation of collapse, it is still absolutely impossible for the three towers to fall at free fall and at continued acceleration."

Why was there molten steel and vaporized steel at WTC? And molten molybdenum? And vaporized lead?

The collapsing towers created the same conditions you can demonstrate in your kitchen with iron oxide, aluminum, and heat created by impact. That's why all those things, in varying amounts, were there. 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

The collapsing towers created the same conditions you can demonstrate in your kitchen with iron oxide, aluminum, and heat created by impact. That's why all those things, in varying amounts, were there. 

Not true at all, Omni. 

You really do not understand what nanothermite is. This isn't ground up aluminum and ground up iron oxide. This is thermite created from the nano scale up. This is something that only US military labs know how to do. It is a new discovery, made by the same people who had the security contracts on WTCs 1 & 2. 

[bolding is mine]

Quote

PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

By Terry Morrone. Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

In this communication I shall show that only explosives could have produced the large amounts of molten steel found at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in the days following 9/11. There is universal agreement by scientists in and out of government that the temperatures reached in the fires were much lower than the melting point of steel. (1-3) Steel could have only have melted (assuming no explosives were used) if it gained additional energy in falling. I shall show that this gravitational energy is insufficient to cause melting.

Steven E. Jones has made a strong case that some molten steel (or iron-rich metal) was observed pouring from high up in the South Tower (4). In that case gravity was not a factor. However, much more molten steel was probably found in the rubble than was observed pouring out of the buildings, and the purpose of this report is to show that gravity could not have played a significant role in its formation. Although there are some technical points involved in my arguments, I will describe, in an elementary way, all the scientific concepts involved. This report will also provide references showing that molten steel was indeed found.

...

Let's be generous and assume that all the energy of motion of the falling steel is converted to heat in the steel. Then the gravitational energy available as shown above is at most 4028 joules. This is a lot less than the 750,400 joules needed to melt the steel. In fact the gravitational energy is too small by a factor of 750,400 divided by 4028, or 186. The factor is probably much larger because, for example, all the molten steel probably did not fall from the top floor and in the case of WTC 7, the Journal of 9/11 Studies 41 April 2007 building height is about half that of the towers. A more realistic number would be over a thousand.

 

How the Steel Was Melted

Steven E. Jones, obtained several samples of once melted steel (or iron-rich material) from the WTC (4,9). He had it analyzed and it contained mostly iron but also Sulfur and other metals indicating that it was produced by the reaction of thermate and steel. Thermate is a variation of thermite, which can be an incendiary or explosive depending on the fineness of the powders comprising the mixtures. Ultrafine powders (less than about 100 micron particle size) are needed for the explosive form. Thermite analogs can be used in building demolitions. (10) When thermite is ignited a chemical reaction takes place that produces molten iron and lots of heat. Sulfur is added to enhance the melting of steel by the molten iron product. Sulfur was also found, independently, in steel from WTC 7 by J.R. Barnett. (11)

D.P. Grimmer showed that a few inches of thermite applied to the outside of any column in the twin towers would contain enough energy to melt through the column; enough could be used to bring the buildings down. (12)

Evidence That Molten Steel Was Found in the WTC Debris In James Glanz's New York Times 11/29/2001 Article “A Nation Challenged: The Sight; Engineers Have A Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel.” The next to last paragraph reads “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”

In the website http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html several references to reports of molten steel are cited. Here are a few examples:

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving “everything from molten steel beams to human remains.” Journal of 9/11 Studies 42 April 2007

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stating: In the first weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter “Toolie” O'Tolle, who stated that “some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were dripping from molten steel.”

See also: http://www.pnacitizen.org/john_gross_nist_pnac.php

Conclusions Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

 

[Omni]

Well you pretty much dodged the airspeed question, so how about the one about the amount of explosive needed to carry out this conspiracy, and how did they get it embedded? But here is a little educational video for you while you think about that.

 

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

[hot enough]

11 minutes ago, Omni said:

Well you pretty much dodged the airspeed question,

 

Not at all, but you are dodging the nanothermite issue and the molten/vaporized steel issue, and all the other impossibilities that are the USGOCT. 

[Omni]

Just now, hot enough said:

Not at all, but you are dodging the nanothermite issue and the molten/vaporized steel issue, and all the other impossibilities that are the USGOCT. 

Obviously you don't read or listen to anything other than what your phony conspiracy theorists tell you to. Sad.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

Obviously you don't read or listen to anything other than what your phony conspiracy theorists tell you to. Sad.

How did the nanothermite get there?

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How did the nanothermite get there?

What you call nano thermite got there due to burning aluminum and iron oxide.

[betsy]

10 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Holy f*** really? You of all people complaining about large fonts?

Read again.  Who's complaining about large fonts?

 

[hot enough]

11 hours ago, Omni said:

What you call nano thermite got there due to burning aluminum and iron oxide.

Provide your source. Nanothermite, as I have explained is not a grind down process, it is a build up process on the nano scale. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by hot enough

[Hydraboss]

14 hours ago, Omni said:

Do you ever plan to answer the question as to aircraft speed?

Hot enough, please answer Omni's question.  The one about airspeed.  We're all curious.

Please?

 

Thanks,

[hot enough]

12 hours ago, Omni said:

Well you pretty much dodged the airspeed question, so how about the one about the amount of explosive needed to carry out this conspiracy, and how did they get it embedded? But here is a little educational video for you while you think about that.

 

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

Those guys are as nutty as the blacksmith. Are you bringing him on next? Now you guys are suggesting that the WTC structural steel was made of steel wool?

What about the 2003 RJLee Group report?

Quote

“WTC Dust Signature Report,” which contained much more about iron. It said: “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust … but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” [23]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

 

1. What about the nanothermite that was found?

2. What about the unreacted particles of nanothermite found?

3. What about these particles that when heated, exploded, revealing the same thermite chemical signature?

4. What about the FEMA described molten and vaporized steel? The eutectic steel?

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

[Hydraboss]

What about "airspeed"??

 

Are you capable of answering the question or not?

 

Hint:  it's a number

Edited April 25, 2017 by Hydraboss
to add:

[Wilber]

Is hot enough struggling with the relationship between mass, velocity and kinetic energy?

[Omni]

Then there is that tricky business of ASL vs AGL

[hot enough]

15 hours ago, Omni said:

The collapsing towers created the same conditions you can demonstrate in your kitchen with iron oxide, aluminum, and heat created by impact. That's why all those things, in varying amounts, were there. 

That's completely false, as you, and your sidekicks know. You all are simply intent on distractions. Why? When you know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades that the USGOCT is true. Why are you supporting murderers and why are you falsely accusing innocent people? That is low low low. 

Why was there molten steel and vaporized steel at WTC? And molten molybdenum? And vaporized lead?

Your little kitchen experiment can't create molten steel, vaporized steel, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, EUTECTIC steel. 

[Omni]

16 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That's completely false, as you, and your sidekicks know. You all are simply intent on distractions. Why? When you know full well that there isn't a snowball's chance in Hades that the USGOCT is true. Why are you supporting murderers and why are you falsely accusing innocent people? That is low low low. 

Why was there molten steel and vaporized steel at WTC? And molten molybdenum? And vaporized lead?

Your little kitchen experiment can't create molten steel, vaporized steel, molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, EUTECTIC steel. 

Yes it can, if you add in the hurricane force winds blowing up the voided elevator shafts and fanning the fire caused by thousands of gallons of jet fuel and then create the impacts/friction/heat that collapsing floors would cause and add to the pile all of the electronic gadgets that would have existed in that many offices, and then add to it the tones of aluminum from the plane itself and the rusted iron in the girders. A frightening mix that creates all those things.

[hot enough]

Come on, Omni, get serious. You are making wild, nutty assumptions that are not verifiable by your always non-existent sources.

 

[Hydraboss]

Hey...do you know anything about the airspeed those jets were traveling?

 

Thanks,

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

Hey...do you know anything about the airspeed those jets were traveling?

 

Thanks,

I think he does but doesn't want to acknowledge the relationship between velocity and energy.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

Hey...do you know anything about the airspeed those jets were traveling?

 

Thanks,

One way is they tracked them on radar and then there are some of the videos which you can do math on with regard to frames per second, aircraft dimensions etc. The results vary slightly but they all put the speeds at just under 500 mph for one plane and just over for the other. But in both cases close to twice the speed those buildings were designed to withstand.

[Omni]

23 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Come on, Omni, get serious. You are making wild, nutty assumptions that are not verifiable by your always non-existent sources.

 

Plane loads of people disappeared somewhere, but the planes never crashed, and the government loaded office buildings with TONS of explosives and then blew them up. Now there's some nutty assumptions for sure.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

aCome on, Omni, get serious. You are making wild, nutty assumptions that are not verifiable by your always non-existent sources.

 

The above comment repeats your m.o. that when you do not know how to debate someone by providing alternative theories, you name call.

Its what you do, name call. Not only that you misrepresent. You were indeed many times on this forum provided sources for the position of Omni nd many others  as to your absurd "nano-thermite" inferences and when given those sources that directly showed your inferences were based on false assumptions due to your lack of understanding of basic chemistry,  you engaged in name calling and did not respond to the actual issues raised from those sources.

Specifically the information you can not repudiate which renders our theories asinine and scientifically impossible are as follows:

Thermite in general  will make an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs and will NOT make clean cuts because its a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as per this video: http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

You were advised that stoichiometric thermite requires

·          2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

·          2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

·          2 moles of Al weigh 54 g

·          1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

·          density of Al=2.64 g/c

·          density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc

·          54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al

·          160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

·          therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g and therefore:

·          a volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg and therefore:

·          for a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh : 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That means 4.8 pounds would be needed just to burn a small hole in a small car engine and so to burn a massive core column let alone have more on hnd to to burn for 6 weeks as was claimed by the people you quote would require tons.

In fact you were advised to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window the math would be as follows:
 

·          a mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed

·          2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

·          1 mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g and herefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of   

            Fe

·          that means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2

·          the mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

·          comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

·          iron is 7.9 g/cc

·          aluminum is 2.64 g/cc

·          Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3

·          therefore for the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al. and therefore:

·          to produce the iron from thermite would require a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced

·          also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al, so, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from

           thermite compared with   molten aluminum droplets.

·          i.e., if you assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers, if  it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of

           thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass

·          if 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane,  if it had been molten iron produced

           from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the

           south tower. and thee section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft

·          * the amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window

           source: http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

·          the weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds

·          a hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs

·          a gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window of the WTC

 

All the above was provided to you with the source and you chose to ignore the above.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Rue

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

The above comment repeats your m.o. that when you do not know how to debate someone by providing alternative theories, you name call.

Its what you do, name call. Not only that you misrepresent. You were indeed many times on this forum provided sources for the position of Omni nd many others  as to your absurd "nano-thermite" inferences and when given those sources that directly showed your inferences were based on false assumptions due to your lack of understanding of basic chemistry,  you engaged in name calling and did not respond to the actual issues raised from those sources.

Specifically the information you can not repudiate which renders our theories asinine and scientifically impossible are as follows:

Thermite in general  will make an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs and will NOT make clean cuts because its a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as per this video: http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

You were advised that stoichiometric thermite requires

·          2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

·          2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

·          2 moles of Al weigh 54 g

·          1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

·          density of Al=2.64 g/c

·          density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc

·          54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al

·          160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

·          therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g and therefore:

·          a volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg and therefore:

·          for a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh : 0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That means 4.8 pounds would be needed just to burn a small hole in a small car engine and so to burn a massive core column let alone have more on hnd to to burn for 6 weeks as was claimed by the people you quote would require tons.

In fact you were advised to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window the math would be as follows:
 

·          a mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed

·          2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

·          1 mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g and herefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of   

            Fe

·          that means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2

·          the mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

·          comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

·          iron is 7.9 g/cc

·          aluminum is 2.64 g/cc

·          Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3

·          therefore for the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al. and therefore:

·          to produce the iron from thermite would require a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced

·          also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al, so, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from

           thermite compared with   molten aluminum droplets.

·          i.e., if you assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers, if  it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of

           thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass

·          if 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane,  if it had been molten iron produced

           from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the

           south tower. and thee section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft

·          * the amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window

           source: http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

·          the weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds

·          a hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs

·          a gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window of the WTC

 

All the above was provided to you with the source and you chose to ignore the above.

 

 

Interesting, I was about to post that very same info. but you saved me the trouble, thanks. As you probably have seen I tried a few times to ask the question as to how much "stuff" would it take to down these buildings and how the hell did "they" get if installed, but of course to no avail. And of course there is the business of, with this conspiracy theory, how many people would have to be in the know, be in compliance, and not spill the beans after all these years. And also after all these years it still surprises me how many inept conclusions the 9/11 truthers have arrived at, and how many websites that continue to push them. Anyhow I now know a little more about thermites than I ever really wanted to. BTW I did have the chance to fly low level over the great hole in the ground left where the towers used to be, after the cleanup but before any further construction had been done. We've all seen it on TV many times of course but when you actually go right over it you get a little better concept of the dimensions. It gave me a bit of an eerie feeling I must admit.  ,

[Rue]

The above info Omni is on many sites and was first posted on:

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

Hot enough never was able to argue against it so he simply dismissed the site. In fact the genius conspiracy theorists to this day when confronted with the math   do what Hot Enough does on this thread, change the subject When the math proved them wrong on thermites, hey no problem they invented the new and improved NANO thermite.

The fact is there the math does not lie and so when the truth conspiracy theorists were debunked as to their theories they invented a new thermite by putting the word NANO in front of it to suggest oh yah ut this was a new super powerful thermite – in other words, when the science debunks your theory reinvent it by giving it a new name and new properties of explosion.

The premises of nano thermites assumes explosives were installed in the buildings in advance and there were controlled demolitions and the damage was not caused solely by the airline crashes.

In fact it was Steven E. Jones a physicist who decided to make speculative theory about controlled explosions with ZERO scientific basis and then he was joined by an architect Richard Gage, a software engineer, Jim Hoffman and wait for it a theologian, David Ray Griffin-oh well then.

Of course for the truthers they dismissed reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Popular Mechanics and a never ending list of structural mechanics and engineers who showed how fire induced, gravity driven collapse did not require explosives.

Well then no problem, if all those people proved there were no explosives then its simple realy-they must all be in on the conspiracy and did the truthers say “thermite”…er uh no….they meant “super” or “nano” thermite, yah that’s it, a new thermite and only the government would have such a weapon. Any proof it exists? Well no but hey is there proof It DOES NOT exist said the truthers. So the same Jones who had his speculation ripped to shreds for lackinh any scientific basis comes back in April of 2009 thre years after he was revealed to be an idiot this time with a Dane, Niels Harrit and to this day you can go on the internet and read ridiculous allegations that Harrit’s theories founbd in the paper, The Open Chemical Physics Journal can not be repudiated. The article, “ Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” now claimed evidence of nano-thermite in samples of the dust. To this date there is NO proof the alleged samples were collected at the WTC we are just supposed to believe they were. How convenient they were found after the original theory was debunked and to get around the thermite theory be inventing a different kind of thermite.

It aint rocket science. Its called reverse scientific method. When your theory gets shot down in flames, simply make a new one. The m.o. is simple-throw out the data that is debunked with data that matches the conclusion you want. Its simple. There’s no cause and effect. There’s a conclusion, and then the invention of what ever you need to match that conclusion.

Isn’t it interesting though Brent Blanchard who wrote the book, “ A History of Explosive Demolition in America” pointed out that no demolition personnel ever noticed any signs of thermite during their 8 months of removing debris. Hey no problem they are of course all in on the conspiracy.

Hey let’s also not forget that the supposed beams from the WTC Jones claims to have tested can not be proven to have been taken from the WTC. You are just supposed to take Jones’ at his word that that is where he got them from without anyone noticing….not to mention if they were even cut away from the debris pile which there is no proof of Jones can not say whether the equipment he supposedly used to cut away the beams (torch, shears, other equipment) didn’t already have trace thermites on them or that the supposed material he transferred off the WTC site did not get contaminated elsewhere.

Hey no problem. Who needs proof the alleged evidence was not contaminated let alone comes from the actual site. But it gets better. The very basis for concluding the trace elements were thermite which from their causes truthers to automatically assume it was a secret government super thermite to fi t their theory is assunmed to be thermite because it contains iron oxide and aluminium. Lol never mind how common these two substances were in the Twin Towers, they must have come from secret explosives.

Wait it gets better. To be abkle to cut through a vertical steel beam which the conspirators claim happened, you’d have to contain molten iron from dropping down let alone that thermite reaction is too slow for it to be used in a building demolition.

It gets even more absurd. When my favourite conspiracy dude Jesse the Body Ventura using New Mexico Tech to demonstrate how nanothermite can slice through a large steekl beam, the actual nanothermite could not cut through the beam. Jesse Jesse Jesse. I used to love him w hen he was a wrestling announcer.

Common sense? Nah. Not with conspiracy geniuses. Never mind how long it would have taken to plant the explosives Never mind to plant the explosives you would have ben require to open dozens of floors with no one noticing let alone bring in THOUSANDS of pounds of explosives, fuses, ignition and wiring mechanisms and oh hell no one noticed.

But hey the hundreds if not thousands of people required to be in on the conspiracy, well heck to this day not one has leaked his/her story. How come Julien Assange has not leaked it hmmm?

This need to take a catastrophe and give it new meaning is a psychological reaction to terrorism. It denies the terrorism and instead turns it into a controllable, logical, sensical phenomena. Now its not a threat that governments despite all their best planning can’ stop, its preventable. There’s no bad terrorists only bad governments. Daesh? Al Quaeda? Good people. . Yah that’s it. The Good guys are bad and the bad guys are good. The bad guys you think are bad guys don’t really want to hurt you. They are just misunderstood. It’s the good guys you have to watch.

Well I would suggest anyone who believes 9-11 was caused by Bush-if you really believe that, should  move to Iran or Iraq or Syria where you can live with the good guys and be safe. Or move to North Korea. The fat boy has a great country and can keep you safe from the Americans.