911 was a complete inside job-No Question About it-Evidence Here...

[bryan]

heh i don't need proof regarding 911

i saw the way those buildings went down and knew myself it was a controlled demolition

just using your gut one can see that it was an inside job

everyone going on about proof proof proof

use COMMON SENSE - 110 stories buildings don't fall straight down in seconds from burning airline fuel

you don't need to be an expert to figure that out..

and let's not forget about NORAD and standing down...those guys are trained soldiers...they don't make mistakes and no training session is gonna interfer with defending US airspace

the only reason they didn't respond was because of orders...these soldiers follow orders!

[Horatio_Bunce]

You're on the money there, Bryan. It's time to stop trying to gather more evidence to explain this one.

Speak out against it the action - YES.

Argue about the type of steel in a pool at the bottom of the demolition - NO.

[bryan]

horatio,

that's what i never understood...i used to argue with a brother of mine about it..then i just stopped...i figured he was either asleep or a dumbass and usually when you get people on a forum who are looking for proof there is a good reason (disinfo agents)

proof is fine and dandy if you have it but i have something better..

why did they fool the masses?

because people are asleep

why are people asleep?

because from the time they're young their parents teach them not to trust that INNER VOICE...you know...they said "why don't you use your head"...but see...using your head and always searching for proof isn't always the answer...sometimes just using common sense and your INNER VOICE will show you everything very clearly

i'm amazed that people didn't see it right away like my dumbass brother..it was so freakin obvious to me

you know what i did that 1st week after 911...i got drunk and called 10s of congressmen and said bush was the one behind 911...they sure were quiet (the representatives) at the other end of the phone..

i can't believe the stupidity of people or lack of awareness...i mean...it's so easy to see clearly if you have your eyes open.

[Cherie]

Speak out against it the action - YES.

Argue about the type of steel in a pool at the bottom of the demolition - NO.

This should be the motto of the movement.

[Radioactive_Man]

The whole building wasn't the same temperature.  There were still flames in that building hot enough to "melt" those people who were able to stand in the windows.

The people don't seem to be melting in the videos and pictures I've seen. There is mass evidence that shows clearly that the fires were NOT intense. 1. The buildings smouldered for around an hour. They were not infernos. The main visual: thick plumes of black smoke, which would be the outcome of a weak, oxygen-starved fire. Compare this also to the several towering infernos that have happened in skyscrapers since that have not collapsed; the building in Madrid, etc. Then you have the fireman's tapes, which state clearly that there were "two isolated pockets of fire", which they needed two water lines to knock down. The fires weren't spreading, and remained quite isolated at a portion of the top of the towers. The official story claims that the planes didn't play much of a role in the collapse of the towers. Accepting the theory that fire was responsible for the collapses, means that you also have to believe that those small, weak isolated pockets of fire towards the top of the buildings could cause every single steel column in the towers to fail simultaneously. That kind of sudden energy and precision comes only with controlled demolitions.

If the plane did cause the building to fall, how fast should it have fallen?

Probably around a minute. If you factor in the resistance to each floor alone, let alone everything else in the towers. But, the towers didn't 'collapse' in any sense, they pulverised themselves entirely. They exploded into dust. At freefall speed. The official story of fire cannot explain this, the fire theory is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible according to basic physics laws. If I dropped a ton of concrete and steel off the roof of the WTC, it would take the same amount of time to hit the ground as the towers did to completely 'collapse'. So, the official theory is saying that the law of gravity can effectively bypass the other fundamental laws, like physics. No. That's not how things work. Tons of concrete and steel could NEVER crash through the floors of a building as fast as it could fall through the air. If that could happen it would total a factor of resistance of ZERO! The only way that would be possible is if there had been NO floors and NO steel girders in the WTC. And, of course we know there were definitely floors and steel in that building. So, the only scientific, logical, physical explanation at this point is, that explosives were destroying the building in order for it to suffer such an impossibly low resistance factor.

No explosives were ever found, that's a start.  Then, of course, we have the lack of any seismic readings of explosives.

Come on. They weren't going to release any 'seismic readings' (COME ON! They wouldn't/couldn't even release videos showing a plane hitting the Pentagon! WAKE UP!) of the explosions which several people clearly heard and felt, the devastation of which can be clearly SEEN. And, has been testified to by fireman, rescue workers and other witnesses. And, then we have the news reports detailing the findings of explosives, FBI discovering suspicious devices, fireman talking about bombs in the buildings and telling people to get back! And, there's another big reason why more evidence of explosives hasn't been discovered, and it's because Rudy conveniently shipped off all the steel from the WTC and melted it all down. Which means he's guilty of destruction of evidence by law. He did what he did to COVER IT UP! The reason that we don't have 'All' the evidence is because they have routinely withheld and, or destroyed it!

[zlater]

has anyone thought of this one? :

Jetliner fuel at X gallons and after Y flight distance equals evaporation in (time of impact to collapse) minus time X actually evaporates leaving only residue fires.

meaning before the real fuel for the fire had reached its temperature peak it had already cooled down due to lack of "material".. don't know if this makes sense with my bad english but time vs temperature that was never enough to melt the steel.

[Biggs]

I believe it very likely that micronukes were used on 9-11 to bring down the towers. This explains the cancers and the pulverisation of concrete, computers, office equipment to dust particles that were microns across (very small for conventional explosives). It would also explain the molten steel pools so long afterwards.

If you are unaware or unsure of the theory I suggest you take a look at these articles.

Trolls will dismiss this as fantasist stuff, but I mean really, how do cars a kilometer away from the site melt because a building collapsed.

US governments use of Atomic bombs - domestic - WTC
by Ed Ward MD
lots of good thru links embedded in article, a bit long but worth reading
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm
=================================================

Was tower collapse caused by small hydrogen bomb?
lots of useful pictures here to compare detonation types
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
=================================================

WTC cancer cluster like aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
article taken from 2006, but still relavent, seemingly the situation is much worse now, nearly a year later, and 50,000 or more people are sickened according to wearechange.rog
http://www.total411.info/2006/12/wtc-cancer-cluster-like-hiroshima.html

[zlater]

the after collapse vids would have had serious distorion if there had been radioactivity in the air or vicinity.

thermate is the only scientific explanation imo and steven jones hits the dot on the i. it makes sense and easy to put two and two together with a small knowledge in physics and researching the vids etc.

microbombs or atombombs or microwaves or similar.. nah.. even heard of someone seriusly suggesting the planes had been holograms >.<

think of all the material that were burned in the towers. lots of poisonous gases and the widespread dust..

[Biggs]

yes I understand the case is not fully proven, but what the hell explains all those melted cars, some as far away as a kilometer, ain't no thermate/ite can do that.

and the radiation would only be alpha particles from these devices, and they do not interfere with film, electrics etc the same as gamma or beta rays. Plus geiger counters do not pick them up very easily (i.e. most geiger counters will not do so at all)

Alpha radiation cannot ever pierce skin, but if inhaled or ingested then it becomes highly dangerous and destroys and mutates cells more than either beta or gamma radiation.

This also explains the problems with depleted uranium dust, it gives off very little gamma, beta radiation, it is depleted to an extent after all, but the dust (post use) gives off alpha radiation and if ingested or inhaled wreaks havoc on a person's insides.

This explains all the gulf war syndrome and Iraqi, Afghani and Yugoslavian cancers and birth defects.

[Biggs]

further to the above,

telecoms did go down on 9-11.

[zlater]

i'll admit it may be an interesting theory to play with to find evidence for it but i'm still conviced of what posted earlier. 

the amount of survivors from it that had their examinations should have shown something. many got treated for what the thermate example would have caused.

telecoms could have easily have gone down due to the huge loss of electricity and the traffic going haywire.

idk..

have you got more to back your theories up?

btw.. silverstein said "pull it" not "nuke it"

[maddog3n]

Two things-if a small nuke went off there would have been an EMP blast...that didn't happen because there are too many cameras and other electronic devices still functioning after the first and subsequent buildings collapsed.  Two, the telcoms didn't go down that day.  I know this because I worked for Lucent Technologies, for ATT as our customer, and the 1 4ESS and 3 5ESS switches located near WTC were all up and active.  One CO...I don't remember which one but it had a 5ESS switch in it was hit with debris but still continued to route and handle the calls.  The reason why you couldn't make calls was that the other LEC's were not as well built as ATT's switches and were quickly overloaded.  Also, a number of cell sites were effected when the towers and other buildings collapsed not only from direct impact but dust, rubble, etc...

[Biggs]

no I do not have much more to back this up, however, the high tritium levels and melted cars, micron sized dust particles all point towards exotic weaponary/nukes.

It could have been scalar weaponary, like HAARP or something, but micronukes (0.1KT or less) would also fit the bill and cause all of this.

I am not suggesting that thermite/ate was not sued, simply that more than this was used. The melted cars cannot be explained by thermite/ate. I do not have the video to hand but there sure is one out there.

[Biggs]

the EMP blast from micronukes would be minimal, they can have a blast radius of as little as 10 metres and do not send out the gamma ray blastwaves associated with normal fission nukes.

[maddog3n]

Ahhh...did an oopsie...in the first post I meant eddy15 not Bryan...sorry about that Bryan.

[Rufus Shinra]

the EMP blast from micronukes would be minimal, they can have a blast radius of as little as 10 metres and do not send out the gamma ray blastwaves associated with normal fission nukes.

Isn't the smallest nuke very similar to that of the Davy Crockett?
The Davy Crockett is a lot more powerful than 10 meters of bast radius...

Anyway, what's the point of putting extremely small nuclear devices into the building when it would be easier to use regular explosives such as those normally used in controlled demolition of buildings..?

Regardless, it's pretty irrelevant how exactly they were brought down.

There were thermate, and some sort of explosives. Period.

Santa Clause may have teleported into WTC2 right before it collapsed, but that makes no difference.

It's just like the stupid pod thing that may or may not have been attatched to the belly of the aircraft(s).

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Period.

[maddog3n]

Would you mind pointing me to website about how micronukes don't create a EMP blast.  I'm going to have a hard time buying without a lot more proof.  Any fissionable device, is going to produce the whole spectrum of EMF Alpha, Beta, Gamma, X-ray, visible spectrum, heat, and an EMP upon detonation.  To do otherwise, defies the first and second laws of thermodynamics and newtonian physics, ie...In any process, in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system the total energy of the universe remains constant, , the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (respectively).  Thanks.

[zlater]

no to nukes..


anyway.. what type of fuel does a 757 use and how fast does it burn? how long was it the towers stood after impact again? the one struck first was brought down first.
If i'm not wrong i'd compare it to the fluid you ignite a grill with that it evaporates quickly and only stays on fire at the flammable material which steel is not.

[Rufus Shinra]

You could've pour 60,000,000,000 liters of jetfuel on the whole WTC complex and turn New York City into a sea of fuel, ignite the fuel then fly 10 Airbus A380's into each Twin Tower, and it neither of them would collapse. It would burn and smoke until the fire died naturally, and the buildings would still be standing.

[jannerbob]

BigRon - Reading Prisonplanet and watching a few documentaries is not 'doing research'. I know all about Building 7, you cannot prove that it was destroyed by CD, and you know you can't. You can't get anywhere close. I wish you all would stop with silly statements like-

-'Just look at Building 7 that proves it' I know all about
-'We know it definitely was an inside job' No You DONT!
- 'Wake up' Wake up yourselves. Or show me some proper evidence.

So what exactly do you know about WTC7.Do you know about the three massive main trusses spanning two floors and weighing 36 ton each.Do you know FEMA suggested that one or two of these massive 1/2 inch shop welded cantilevered designed trusses failed.The kink was directly above those trusses so the evidence is there for you too see.Would a carbon fire burning above those trusses cause them to fail?only a retard would believe that.So what about the imaginary diesel fires.A diesel fire gives off jet black smoke and lots of it.There is no jet black smoke in any film i have seen.Then there is the fact that 100,000 tons of steel was added to the building to reinforce for the generators.100,000 ton of steel requiring 12 miles of welding.The force needed to shear 1 inch of 1/2" shop weld is approximately 3 ton.Do you know that entire walls for multiple floors could be removed without causing any weakness to the structure.Thats why there was a crane on the roof,to lift in the diesel generators.Lets go on to the fires which were supposed to have been caused by fractured diesel riser pipes.These pipes are double skinned,a safety feature which detects pressure drop and automatically shuts down the electrically operated fuel pumps.When this happens all the fuel in the risers returns by gravity to the main ready use tanks.There was no diesel fire therefore.So what you are left with is a bog standard office fire,burning on a few floors and above the main trusses.Heat does travel upwards after all.People always say"what about the damage"my reply is "what about it,it made no difference".Then they say "the fire burned for 7 hours"to which i reply "it could have burned for seven months and still not have collapsed".This building did have full thermal protection and did have massive safety allowances.There is absolutely no reason why a carbon fire could do anything to the structure.We have heard that the fire main was damaged.How exactly?there were two 20" fire mains and they were below ground.If they were broken by the falling building you would have seen 20 foot water jets shooting in the air.Didn,t see it though did you.Manhatten is surrounded by water yet there wasn,t enough water to put out an office fire,thats bullshit.Everything i have ever read about WTC7 is bullshit.It was strong,well designed and easily and i mean easily able to withstand an office fire and what can only be described as peripheral damage.When people say just watch it they are right,only an imbecile would say it makes any sense.This building was very easy to bring down and that is what happened.I can,t prove that though because i do not have access to steel samples but then again even NIST don,t have any steel to examine.More bullshit.

[jbrid1138]

You're right EDDY155 --

I give up, you're right // There is no evidence.

We that believe that 9/11 was an inside job are basing that upon nothing.  You win.

Now turn off the light and go back to sleep, everything's just fine and dandy.   

[Rufus Shinra]

Right, it was not an inside job.

It was clearly an Outside Job, since it happend outside... 

[jbrid1138]

And speaking of outside (all those firemen that were turned away from Building Number 7 (WTC7) the day of 9/11, that were kept outside hours before it finally collapsed -- and yet LARRY SILVERSTEIN later claimed that when he said "PULL IT" he meant the fire amd rescue workers // Problem with that is the numerous testimony of fire department personnel who report how they were kept away from the building for many hours before it fell down // kept away.  So, just maybe LARRY SILVERSTEIN meant what he said "pull it' meaning pull the damn building down // then we watched it fall:
_______________
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2210

So by "pull it" he meant "withdraw [the firefighters] from the building". Not likely; according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC7 at the time Frank Fellini, there were no firefighters in the building to speak of:

"...We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down."
-- FELLINI

-- And who is Fellini?  This is Fellini:
Frank Fellini -- Fire Chief (F.D.N.Y.) 
The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down. 
Interview, 12/3/2001, New York Times 

-- GO HERE TO READ OTHER TESTIMONY OF ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE THAT BUILDING SEVEN (WTC7) WAS GONNA COME DOWN // EVENTUALLY:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/b7foreknowledge.html

[zlater]

You could've pour 60,000,000,000 liters of jetfuel on the whole WTC complex and turn New York City into a sea of fuel, ignite the fuel then fly 10 Airbus A380's into each Twin Tower, and it neither of them would collapse. It would burn and smoke until the fire died naturally, and the buildings would still be standing.

yeah i agree but how long would the amount of fuel that could have been in the jets burn at highest temp without any effect other than on the flammable material? They had flewn for quite some time and there were two isolated pockets with np for the FD to extinguish.. wasn't it already dying out long before the collapse?

[Alex_V]

I must say I am incredibly disappointed that what was a fairly reasonable debate has been ruined by moderators removing all the posts from one side. I don't think this does the debate any credit whatsoever - stop insulting our intelligence and let the principles of free speech stand.

[Rufus Shinra]

wasn't it already dying out long before the collapse?

Yes, the fire was nearly gone.

Black smoke indicates an oxygen-starved fire...

Watch 911 Mysteries - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

[zlater]

wasn't it already dying out long before the collapse?

Yes, the fire was nearly gone.

Black smoke indicates an oxygen-starved fire...

Watch 911 Mysteries - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

thanks.

yeah i've seen it a couple of times along with others but my point is just has there been any numbers of the chemical reaction of jet fuel burning to go along with it other than the highest temperature of what it can achieve?

[jbrid1138]

I must say I am incredibly disappointed that what was a fairly reasonable debate has been ruined by moderators removing all the posts from one side. I don't think this does the debate any credit whatsoever - stop insulting our intelligence and let the principles of free speech stand.

To that, please let me say 'Welcome' to to the forum // I see this reflects as your first post -- Is it really, considering, your statement that moderators have removed ALL the post from one side?  How would you know that, forum friend?  This being your first post, huh?

I don't see that // Not ALL -- maybe select post from someone they've identified as a TROLL // now I can understand those postings being removed if for no other reason than they tend to promote lies and disorder and seek to redirect and confuse issues even more than they are already confused --

Meaning the controversy as surrounds the 'official version' // those guys (TROLLS) aren't here just to present the otherside of argument, in other words, they want to slant the truth -- any which way you turn it.  And there has been far too much of that already as regards 9/11.

Keeping in mind that 9/11 was an inside job -- none of us with good sense would want to sit down with any of those guilty people that caused the death of innocents that day, and chat -- would we?  I'm asking, seriously.  I wouldn't because first of all knowing what we know -- they are surely bound and determined to continue their lie from beginning to end, as they have done since the beginning.  I don't think that would prove a benefiicial exchange of thought at all.

I'm not saying that TROLLS are the same guilty SOBs that pulled off 9/11 but their agenda sure is being called into question by me and others, not just moderators, but people seeking truth.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own set of facts.  Right?

     

[Alex_V]

jbrid1138,

I followed the thread for a few days without posting - nothing unusual to report there. I'm disappointed that you don't agree with me, as the thread now resembles various truthers debating thin air, as the posts they are arguing with have vanished.

I think it's fair to say that among the truth movement there is disagreement on certain points - I'm sure not everyone agrees with the mini-nukes theories or no-plane theories for example. And likewise there is debate between the truth movement in general, and supporters of the official theory - I think it's a mistake to think that intelligent people don't exist who doubt the truth movement.

On a site with connections to Alex Jones, who I understand considers free speech an important right, it seems hypocritical to censor unpopular opinions. And surely others from the truth movement would support me on that point?

[TruthgoneWild]

The mini-nuke and no-plane theories were created to discredit our movement. There is no tangible evidence to back either of these theories. They're used by straw-men constantly and those who are truly in search of the truth need to give up on these theories.

Focus on the Thermate, NORAD standing down, drills, molten steel under all three buildings, WTC 7 collapse, bombs in the buildings, bush's brother being involved with the security of the WTC... these are solid events of 911 that straw men don't use.

Stay focused on reality.

[Horatio_Bunce]

Stay focused on reality.

THE best advice that could be given.

[jbrid1138]

jbrid1138,

(snip) I followed the thread for a few days without posting - nothing unusual to report there. I'm disappointed that you don't agree with me, as the thread now resembles various truthers debating thin air, as the posts they are arguing with have vanished.

ALEX_V --

After I sent that post off to you, sir, I got to thinking that yes perhaps I was being a bit judgemental as to your sincerity // which I would like to state up front I was wrong in doing that, and that I do believe you to be expressing an honest concern for debate.  Of course you did just as you said, followed along without comment gaining background knowledge before making your first posting; that would be an intelligent approach, something I need to perhaps work a little better upon myself. 

That said, now, I would also hope that you can accept that certain 'people' who come to this forum, come here to disrupt it.  Why?  Many reasons.  Some are skilled in that endeavor and yet their purpose is eventually realized usually by their constant disregard for ANY of the facts; they seem more inclined to argue for the sake of argument, providing little more than what others come to grasp as nothing more that a vicious circle of continuous nonsense.  And yes because of that, attitudes do sometimes rise to anger, it can happen on both sides of an issue // and what results from that behavior is not necessarily a given; however, this forum is monitored in search of such 'circular nonsense' and when discovered is dealt with as deemed appropriate.  Always with the best interest of the forum as its driving concern in such matters.

I am not challenging you in this regard, I believe your earlier comment (and your follow up) to be sincere, and what I'm trying to say is -- you do have a valid point.

No one here owns the facts; and while our purpose here is to exchange such in a friendly and fair and hopefully open and intelligent manner as to generate serious discussion threads, I'll be as honest with you as I can -- that doesn't always take place; again looking at both sides of an issue.  Individual personalities do come into play, it's not to be avoided, it happens.  Please don't think I'm trying to confuse the issue here and excuse bad behavior (there are many examples of such, I just won't go into details in this posting with you) // while I'm sure you can imagine a few of your own.

ALEX_V, I mean you no disrespect, and based upon your first couple of postings, I personally look forward to hearing more from you.  There are many subjects here that you and I might sit down and talk about in the future, and while doing that, let's both hope that someone whose purpose is other than yours and mine decides not to disrupt whatever it is we might try and make more sense out of.

All of us working together, this forum can be entertaining and it can be educational -- but unfortunately it is also compromised on occasion by childish and immature behavior by some.  Others are down right nasty and their agenda questionable.  You'll see. 

When a person is wrong, they're wrong -- and when they're right, they're right.  And everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  Just remember that some are very passionate when it comes to that opinion,  I think I'll include myself in that lot as well, especially on matters pertaining to 9/11 and the war.   

And when you're hot, you're hot -- and when you're not, you're not (a related little song lyrics that crept into my thoughts there) // sorry about that. 

Just let me close this by saying once again 'Welcome' forum friend // let us all hear from you again soon.  The topic is entirely up to you. 

PS
9/11 was an inside job.  Vote RON PAUL 2008.  Bring our troops home now.

typo

[maddog3n]

Zlater-The answer to your questions on fuel is JetA-this is a kerosene based fuel which has a auto-ignition (this is the temperature that if you heat the fuel to, it will ignite by itself) temperature of 460 degrees F,  a flashpoint of 100 degrees F, and the flame pool rate is 150 ft per sec (if you had a pool of fuel from the end zone to the 50 yrd line and ignited it at the end zone, it would take one sec to get to the 50 yrd line.

[Biggs]

The mini-nuke and no-plane theories were created to discredit our movement. There is no tangible evidence to back either of these theories. They're used by straw-men constantly and those who are truly in search of the truth need to give up on these theories.

Focus on the Thermate, NORAD standing down, drills, molten steel under all three buildings, WTC 7 collapse, bombs in the buildings, bush's brother being involved with the security of the WTC... these are solid events of 911 that straw men don't use.

Stay focused on reality.

I respectfully disagree with you, to discount the micronukes/exotic weaponary (scalar) or no planes theory is to jump the gun somewhat. However, I would suggest not evangalising these theories to the undecided, undecided persons will be less likely to believe them than the main pieces of evidence, so it is not worth trying to sell the case for these theories to such people.

Yet I cannot see how they can be dismissed by truthers as worthwhile pieces of evidence, I mean thermate/ite does not melt cars at a range of 1 kilometer, yet there were melted cars many hundreds of yards away from ground zero. Also, the tritium levels, the dust particles only microns in size, and the rare blood cancers being suffered by first responders all point towards usage of exotic weaponary, either or both scalar beam weapons such as HAARP and micronuclear devices with a yield of less than 0.1KT.,

I would not suggest that thermate/ite was not used or that any of the generally accepted facts on 9-11 were untrue, simply that IN ADDITION theory also used micronukes and or beam weaponry.

Nor do I dismiss the evidence presented in September Clues as to the no plane theory, it hangs together quite well and we do not FOR A FACT that no plane hit the Pentagon and that flight 93 did not crash at the alleged site in Shanksville. It also appears highly unlikely that either of the passenger planes hit the WTC, the planes (if planes did impact WTC at all) were military drone aircraft,, as can be seen clearly in the work of David Vonkleist in 9-11 in Plane Site and 9-11 Ripple Effect (e.g. the pod, colour and the flashes).

So that makes it a great deal more feasible that no planes actually struck at all and in fact missiles were used for the initial strikes and holograms displayed to the public on site, and computer graphics to the rest of us watching at home.

Equally to be fair to yourself and others, I do not claim that the case is proven to the same extent as the more accepted facts such as thermate/ite or stand down orders etc etc.

[maddog3n]

Biggs- I must say that your argument has a great deal of merit.  We shouldn't dismiss the anomalies that you have described. Actually, this was the first time I have heard about the "micro" nukes and the melted cars as evidence of such an event.  My whole problem with that scenario is why use a nuclear device that will have a residual effect that can be traced back to a government agency?  Radiation sickness is very pronounced and easily diagnosed.  Why run the risk of something happening that it becomes public knowledge?  Actually, as I was typing that last sentence, I answered my own question.  That would simply say that a dirty bomb had been planted on board.  Seems to me though that the micro nuke scenario is a little too complicated.  I would ask again if you know of a website on the micro nuke please post or message me.  I would be interested in looking that over.  Thanks.

[Biggs]

hi there,

the radiation would only be alpha particles from these devices, and they do not interfere with film, electrics etc the same as gamma or beta rays. Plus geiger counters do not pick them up very easily (i.e. most geiger counters will not do so at all)

Alpha radiation cannot even pierce skin, but if inhaled or ingested then it becomes highly dangerous and destroys and mutates cells more than either beta or gamma radiation.

This also explains the problems with depleted uranium dust, it gives off very little gamma, beta radiation, it is depleted to an extent after all, but the dust (post use) gives off alpha radiation and if ingested or inhaled wreaks havoc on a person's insides.

This explains all the gulf war syndrome and Iraqi, Afghani and Yugoslavian cancers and birth defects.

Alpha radiation hence cannot cause classic radiation sickness the burning skin and vomiting etc because it cannot pierce anything much, even skin and so would not cause these effects, perhaps if you were near them in the towers, but all those people are deceased.

[Biggs]

Here are a few links which give a decent introduction to this info/theory.


US governments use of Atomic bombs - domestic - WTC
by Ed Ward MD
lots of good thru links embedded in article, a bit long but worth reading
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/25/ward.htm
=================================================

Was tower collapse caused by small hydrogen bomb?
lots of useful pictures here to compare detonation types
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/soldier5.htm
=================================================

WTC cancer cluster like aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
article taken from 2006, but still relavent, seemingly the situation is much worse now, nearly a year later, and 50,000 or more people are sickened according to wearechange.rog
http://www.total411.info/2006/12/wtc-cancer-cluster-like-hiroshima.html

[Alex_V]

Here are two articles that disagree with Steven Jones method and conclusions on thermate/thermite. Both articles come from within the truth movement, and seem to me to raise valid questions on his work that should at least be considered.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.html
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html

I think it is absolutely crucial that the truth movement scrutinises itself in this way - it's the only way forward to a coherent argument. I have been heartened by the way that suspect theories have been checked and dismissed from within the movement in the past - eg the pentagon hole size, and certain estimates of collapse times.

In terms of Jones thermite/thermate claims, these are the claims suggested in these articles...

- that thermate/thermite has never been used in demolition.
- that thermate/thermite is extremely unsuitable for the job it was supposed to have carried out.
- that molten metal could have been aluminium and not steel (contrary to Jones' explanations).
- that samples tested could easily have been contaminated.
- that traces of thermate can be explained by materials already present in the towers or equipment used in the clean-up operation.

If these claims are TRUE, then I don't see what evidence Jones really has to support his theory. What do others here think?

[jannerbob]

Here are two articles that disagree with Steven Jones method and conclusions on thermate/thermite. Both articles come from within the truth movement, and seem to me to raise valid questions on his work that should at least be considered.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physicist_critiques_jones.html
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/scientific/JonesScientificMethod.html

I think it is absolutely crucial that the truth movement scrutinises itself in this way - it's the only way forward to a coherent argument. I have been heartened by the way that suspect theories have been checked and dismissed from within the movement in the past - eg the pentagon hole size, and certain estimates of collapse times.

In terms of Jones thermite/thermate claims, these are the claims suggested in these articles...

- that thermate/thermite has never been used in demolition.
- that thermate/thermite is extremely unsuitable for the job it was supposed to have carried out.
- that molten metal could have been aluminium and not steel (contrary to Jones' explanations).
- that samples tested could easily have been contaminated.
- that traces of thermate can be explained by materials already present in the towers or equipment used in the clean-up operation.

If these claims are TRUE, then I don't see what evidence Jones really has to support his theory. What do others here think?

What do you think thermite is used for firework displays.The alluminothermic reaction melts steel like a knife through butter.

If you have ever seen molten aluminum then you will realise that the molten liquid was ferrous.Aluminum has a distinctive colour.That molten metal remained molten all the way to the ground,alluminim melts at 660 degrees c and would therefore cool and solidify very quickly.Steel melts at over 1500 degrees c yet it is now accepted that the towers were not even half of that temperature.I work with steel every day and i know what molten steel looks like.That molten metal was ferrous there is no doubt.

The steel samples proved that a eutectic reaction causing intergranular melting occurred in that steel.How can you explain that by contamination as eutectic reaction can only occur at above 1000 degrees c and has never happened in an office fire in the history of office fires.

The evidence of thermite can be explained by materials used in the towers?.Granted this might be true but this is what i would do.I would take a piece of that steel shove it in a furnace and chuck some of those everyday objects in and see what happens.How easy would that be.The reason that experiment has not been done,well work that out yourself.

Granted Jones as of yet has not conclusively proved anything but think about this.If the eutectic reaction occurred naturally{causing the steel to melt at 500 degrees c  lower than standard}then every steel frame building is at risk and should be demolished.If every day objects caused the intergranular melting then every steel framed building in the world should be deemed unsafe and demolished.Has anybody even mentioned this fact because eutectic reaction did occur it has been well documented.No recommendations have ever been made so every high rise steel framed building must be safe.Everybody with any knowledge of eutectic reaction knows it happened on 9/11 and never has or ever will occur in an office fire ever again.Of all the unexplainable events that happened that day the eutectic reaction causing intergranular melting of steel turning into swiss cheese is the biggest smoking gun of all.Does thermate explain it,you better believe it does perfectly.Or was it the Sheetrock or the sea salts or the steam or the jet fuel.Talk about desperation.Steel framed buildings with Sheetrock! demolish them they are unsafe,any buildings near the sea! demolish them they are unsafe,Any buildings that might catch fire on a rainy day! demolish them they are unsafe.Do you see where i am going with this..Dr Judy Wood in my opinion is a disinformation specialist.She talks of energy pulse beams and other nonsense.Do not put any faith in her.

The samples Jones has in his possession show high concentrations of metals and metalloid's including aluminum, chromium , antimony, molybdenum, barium, manganese, copper, and zinc, as well as moderate concentrations of lead, selenium, and vanadium.Jones has always stated that a thermate variant was used.His studies are continuing,nothing is proven and nothing is disproven.Jones is the only person looking for an answer though and considering the seriousness of the topic that is positvely shameful.

[Biggs]

what on earth is the problem with the pentagon hole size thing?, i.e. how do you fit a Boeing passenger plane in a 16 foot hole? Undebunkable in my opinion.