# Petition Requesting a Grand Jury to Hear Evidence Not Presented Before - 9/11



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

On April 10th of this year, a petition was filed in the Southern District of New York requesting that a Grand Jury be convened to hear further testamony regarding evidence not found in the Report produced by the Government. Pursuant to the Constitution and Federal Law, it would appear that the Grand Jury if not a Special Grand Jury will have to be convened to be in compliance with the aforementioned controlling Documents.

"Overwhelming evidence presented here demonstrates that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries - not just airplanes or fires - destroyed three steel framed World Trade Center buildings that day in New York City and killed so many of these people. By Law, the Department of Justice through the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York must present this evidence to a Grand Jury. Justice for these victims requires it and the soul of our nation commands it."

https://lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/

Elaborate at will... Please be tolerant of both views, let's just discuss this crucial way-point in the history of our country.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, a turning point where we as a people accepted the words of our government without asking for any sort of validation. Well, forgive me, some of us accepted what our government said, some did not. Someone in another thread spoke of the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was voted in 45 days after the "attack" on 9/11. 45 days, 132 pages. 357 for to 66 against.

This act was the precursor for a number of other acts that increasingly stripped you and I of Rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What if... what if something similar to Operation Ajax, something similar to Operation Northwoods had been allowed to happen by the good people of this country in their names.

There are too many questions to just walk away and say, "OK... whatever the government seeks to reveal, I find this acceptable."

Hence the poll. As a people, who are we? Will we shirk our responsibility to seek the truth when the truth might be too troubling to gather into our hearts, into our minds?

No one wants to believe that we, as a people have surrendered the control of our currency to foreign bankers who are reaping the wind as our elected officials are printing and printing a worthless piece of paper which they will soon increase the interest that they will charge us, to use their Federal Reserve Notes as an expression of value.

Remember, found within Article 1 Section 8:
" To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Nothing within the Constitution or the Bill of Rights designates any power for Congress to divest this responsibility to some other entity.

All of this is part and parcel in this world today. We are $20+ Trillion in debt because we ignored what our government did to convince us when it put the Federal Reserve in charge of managing our currency. We were all too young, our parents were too young, the ability of our grandparents to place their thumbs on the pulse of government was essentially non-existent unless they were privy to that which was authorized within the halls of Congress and within the Senate.

The States were confined to the following: Article 1 Section 10:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Consider this, the Federal Government was not under the constraints that the Constitution placed upon the states. They were granted the power to coin "money", in 1913 the government entered into a contract that allows foreign bankers to control our "money", this allows those foreign bankers to set the interest that you and I pay for the use of this "money", allows a foreign entity to profit off of all the money that our government borrows to maintain our country.

If you do not think that the interest has been accruing since that point, what was the cost of a loaf of bread in 1913?

Look at the Bank of North Dakota, a State Bank, who pays interest on deposits for it's members, who makes loans for small and large businesses, who loans money to communities so that they might insure the infrastructure is maintained and in good repair. And this bank returns some of the profits received into the State's control, the Bank operates to make North Dakota better.

In summary... all of these things and many more unmentioned usurpation's with regards to that which our government was allowed by the governing documents to control have been not only ongoing on a regular basis but are growing day by day. Did our grand parents representatives seek their agreement to place our currency in the hands of foreign bankers?

We have the opportunity to say something now. We have had some things happen to our country that our government has asked us to rely upon what they tell us. Looking back on a number of these things shows us, without a doubt, that our representatives were not really in line with the people but were in line with using our military might to reap the whirlwinds created by those that would take from others, by those that had no respect for the sovereignty of others to direct their the course that their people would choose to pursue.

The testimony for this request for impaneling a Grand Jury is nothing more than people, scientists, technicians, architects, engineers and others who watched in horror as we were attacked, responded as much of the nation responded and saw what our government placed before the whole country, drew us into the quagmire.

These people said "But, wait, - something does not make sense."

Let us all agree that more investigation is a good thing. If something other than the truth was at play in these events, please, as Patrick Henry said once:
For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/patrick_henry

While I have nothing to qualify myself in that fashion - I stand with Mr. Henry.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

You forgot the I don't care option.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> "Overwhelming evidence presented here demonstrates that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries - not just airplanes or fires - destroyed three steel framed World Trade Center buildings that day in New York City and killed so many of these people.


That's simply false.
Don't fall for the internet BS.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's simply false.
> Don't fall for the internet BS.


Not to fight but did you read the section where the overwhelming evidence was laid out?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

They're alleging thermite was used.. ROFLMAO.. I've made thermite and have a bucket of it in my basement. 

Do you know how much thermite would be needed to have any effect on buildings of such size? ROFLMAO.. You'd need a semi-truck full of it.. and at the end of the day, there wouldn't be "micro sphericals" requiring an electron microscope to view.. instead, you'd have huge car size blobs of steel.

Also, with so many people involved in the investigation, there's no way to keep a secret like that.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Not to fight but did you read the section where the overwhelming evidence was laid out?


There is no "overwhelming evidence".

It's just the same old conspiracy theories that have floated around the internet ever since the day after it happened.

There's nothing new in any of it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "overwhelming evidence".
> 
> It's just the same old conspiracy theories that have floated around the internet ever since the day after it happened.
> 
> There's nothing new in any of it.


Yes, you are correct. Many of the things that others have considered "Conspiracy Theories" are presented herein with alleged factual conclusions which include the investigations, testing and the explanations about how the conclusion(s) was/were arrived at. 

The petition only asks to allow this information to be reviewed by an official panel in an unbiased arena.

Wouldn't you like to have this information aired in a proper venue to lay to rest anything that is not alleged with the required supporting and clarifying facts?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> The petition only asks to allow this information to be reviewed by an official panel in an unbiased arena.


All that has been done.



Shine said:


> Wouldn't you like to have this information aired in a proper venue to lay to rest anything that is not alleged with the required supporting and clarifying facts?


This poor mummified horse has been beaten into oblivion already.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Well, I respect what you say but I would most certainly like to have some things looked at a little more closely. There are still things that I am not comfortable with.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> They're alleging thermite was used.. ROFLMAO.. I've made thermite and have a bucket of it in my basement.
> 
> Do you know how much thermite would be needed to have any effect on buildings of such size? ROFLMAO.. You'd need a semi-truck full of it.. and at the end of the day, there wouldn't be "micro sphericals" requiring an electron microscope to view.. instead, you'd have huge car size blobs of steel.
> 
> ...



What if via a legitimate process scientists were able to deduce that there is residual and actual evidence that military grade thermate and nano-thermite was present in the dust throughout the area of the collapses? How much nano-thermite would be needed to aid in these collapses and what methods cold be used to apply these substances? Does the use of nano-thermite produce the micro-sphericals as a side effect? 

How much nano-thermite have you produced?

If these claims are legit, wouldn't you like to see these accusations receive the time necessary to corroborate or refute?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> What if via a legitimate process scientists were able to deduce that there is residual and actual evidence that military grade thermate and nano-thermite was present in the dust throughout the area of the collapses? How much nano-thermite would be needed to aid in these collapses and what methods cold be used to apply these substances? Does the use of nano-thermite produce the micro-sphericals as a side effect?
> 
> How much nano-thermite have you produced?
> 
> If these claims are legit, wouldn't you like to see these accusations receive the time necessary to corroborate or refute?


Thermite is just Iron Oxide powder and fine Aluminum powder mixed together.. You can make these ingredients yourself or just buy them on ebay cheap enough. 

I'm pretty sure that the towers had aluminum in them somewhere.. maybe window frames or something, maybe furniture.. and we know there's lots of iron in there. 

With the way things got ground up on the way down, it wouldn't be any surprise that they would detect the ingredients for Thermite.. its just RUST (iron oxide) and Aluminum.. that's it! When the mixture is set off, the Aluminum steals an oxygen atom from the Iron Oxide, which then forms pure iron and aluminum oxide. The high temperatures are created when the oxygen molecule breaks its iron bond and gets transferred to the aluminum.. It also takes a lot of heat just to get the reaction going.. You could put a bucket of it in your home and burn your home down and it probably still wouldn't ignite.

You would need thousands upon thousands of pounds to have any effect on a building that large. Its also cheap and easy to make.. The reason they don't use it to destroy buildings is because it wouldn't work correctly.. it turns into a liquid which would then just run down the steel beam like syrup.. burning off paint on the way down but not doing much more damage than that. 

Thermite is not a material designed for mass destruction.. it doesn't blow up, doesn't expand, doesn't do anything but get really hot for a very short period of time.. 

Thermite is used in the military in the way a small wrench stops a big machine.. you put a Thermite grenade on the hood of a vehicle and when it goes off, it sends a golf ball size chunk of hot metal into the engine.. Just enough to melt through the intake manifold is all that's needed.. then wires and rubber and oils and greases start burning. 

Or if you wanted to take out a large cannon, you put a Thermite grenade down the barrel and it heats up hot enough and leaves enough material behind to ruin the bore of the weapon. 

One positive aspect of thermite is that its quiet.. a hissing sound.. so if your device has a timer, you could place it on a fuel tank, gas pipe, or other tactical target and have it go off silently so no one hears a boom or a gunshot. 

Calling it a "Grenade" is a misunderstood term.. there's nothing explosive about it. In fact, its frequently used to weld train tracks together.

Stunts like this are designed to do nothing but put money in the lawyers pocket so he can claim he did work to earn it. Its designed to suck money from the ignorant conspiracy theorists and make it look legitimate.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Thermite is just Iron Oxide powder and fine Aluminum powder mixed together.. You can make these ingredients yourself or just buy them on ebay cheap enough.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the towers had aluminum in them somewhere.. maybe window frames or something, maybe furniture.. and we know there's lots of iron in there.
> 
> ...


I see that you did not address the unignited particles which the scientists say are Military Grade Nano-Thermite. What is "nano-thermite" and how is it made?

Plus, I see you explaining things above in your reply that were never offered in my post for discussion, why is that?

Can you address how the "molten steel" came about and how it was able to maintain it's "molten" state for over a month after the collapse? I did not see that in the original government report...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> I see that you did not address the unignited particles which the scientists say are Military Grade Nano-Thermite. What is "nano-thermite" and how is it made?


Its the same as normal thermite, just smaller granules. 



> Can you address how the "molten steel" came about and how it was able to maintain it's "molten" state for over a month after the collapse? I did not see that in the original government report...


Its molten state for over a month? LOL.. You couldn't get any metal to remain molten for over a month without continuously adding energy to it to keep it molten. 

Hey man, if you want to buy into that load of horse crap, feel free to send the guy some of your hard earned money..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Hey man, if you want to buy into that load of horse crap, feel free to send the guy some of your hard earned money..












2,800 degrees, what would generate that much heat?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Shine said: ↑
> I see that you did not address the unignited particles which the scientists say are Military Grade Nano-Thermite. What is "nano-thermite" and how is it made?


You''re just parroting buzzwords.
There is no "military grade Nano Thermite".

It's just powdered finely Aluminum and Iron Oxide.

The individual particles don't all "ignite" and become totally consumed, and there's no way of knowing the source of the Aluminum he claims to have found.

(Here's a hint: Those planes were made from tons of Aluminum)

It's like saying he found some charcoal in the aftermath of a forest fire, and pretending that was the cause.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> I see that you did not address the unignited particles which the scientists say are Military Grade Nano-Thermite. What is "nano-thermite" and how is it made?
> 
> Plus, I see you explaining things above in your reply that were never offered in my post for discussion, why is that?
> 
> Can you address how the "molten steel" came about and how it was able to maintain it's "molten" state for over a month after the collapse? I did not see that in the original government report...


As to the thermite, they often use thermite welding with boilers. There was a boiler every seventh floor (or was it every 9th?). When a boiler overheats it will explode hence the explosions and [possibly] thermite. These were large boilers. 

I'm not buying the molten steel for a month but in theory it could be possible. *If* there was enough fire load and O2 it could happen. We had a forest fire here that I was on back in '98. Several thousand acres. It took a month to get it contained. Then inexplicably the fire started again a week later past the fire line. After investigation the fire burned underground through the roots of a tree and reignited across the fire line. 

https://sectionhiker.com/root-fires-and-leave-no-trace/

_A root fire is a fire that burns underground along the root system of a tree. It’s a very dangerous form of fire because the *fire can smoulder for months* underground, long after the surface part of the fire has been extinguished. Root fires can also travel underground and resurface some distance from their point of origin._
_
_
Steel doesnt have to be 2300 degrees to fail like some of the conspiracy people would have us believe. Only 1100 degrees (or less in certain conditions) is all that is needed. Understand that when engineers build something this tall the biggest enemy is not how strong a girder is, its weight. Every floor puts pressure on the one below it. They use the absolute minimum CYA size beam they can use. Thats so they can have bragging rights on the tallest building. When they do this type of construction they are only factoring in one hour of fire before compromise of the fire protection. The jet fuel dumped into the elevator shaft in the middle and sett the inner core on fire. The floors were cantilevered off this inner core. These inner columns were the main structures strength. The outer columns were only there to hold up the curtain walls. 

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...-strategies-for-steel-frame-construction.html

_*steel girder-*a horizontal beam that supports other beams. Designed to carry heavy loads, girders rest on columns. As fire and heat start to attack the girders, the steel starts to absorb heat. At approximately 1,100 °F, steel will start to fail. At this temperature, the steel begins to expand and twist. A steel girder 100 feet long could expand about 10 inches. Once the steel starts to expand and twist, the columns holding up the steel girder also start to move. The expansion of the steel could cause the walls at both ends of the girder to push out (if the steel butts into a brick wall), possibly causing the wall to buckle or fail _

So you see here that if the main portion of the fire was in the center elevator shaft, and the steel beams expanded, then the inner columns were forced inward form the sagging if the beams. Causing the outer beams attached to lean inwards causing it to implode. 

On boilers. 

http://www.nationalboard.org/index.aspx?pageID=164&ID=412

But consider this: If you could capture all the energy released when a 30-gallon home hot-water tank flashes into explosive failure at* 332°F*, *you would have enough force to send the average car (weighing 2,500 pounds) to a height of nearly 125 feet – or more than the height of a 14-story apartment building – starting with a lift-off velocity of 85 miles per hour!*

The boilers at ground zero are much bigger than 30 gallons. None of these links are linked with either side of this debate (that I know of). Plus a had a friend there that was part of the rescue effort. They tested every hour on the hour for any type of gas and radiation for the safety of the crew. Never had found any on his side if the rescue. 
_
_


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> 2,800 degrees, what would generate that much heat?


If they said it was 2700 degrees, would you believe them? What about 2800? 3000? 4000? What number can they spit out where you stop and wonder.. "oh, how did you measure that? how do you know it was 2800 degrees?"

While I applaud their service and courage, fire fighters and cops are not known for being among the intellectual or scientific crowds. In other words, they say all kinds of silly things, especially if it makes them look good.. and lets face it, battling 2800 degree steel would make anyone look courageous.

Your video's show nothing of significance.. that is, unless you want to see a conspiracy..

The first video you posted is a youtube user who seems to think alien ufo's are everywhere.. check the user's uploads..

The second video you posted is youtube user who's just a wack job.. check user's other uploads under his other youtube name.

Do you see a pattern here?

When you hear the clumpity clump of hooves coming down your road, do you think horses? Or do you think zebras?

EDIT: I'd like to add one more thing.. Remember what I said about irrational beliefs? If a person is raised with irrational beliefs, what other irrational things might they believe?


----------



## Tobster (Feb 24, 2009)

Shine said:


> Well, I respect what you say but I would most certainly like to have some things looked at a little more closely. There are still things that I am not comfortable with.


Let's suppose you get your wish and 'things looked at a little more closely'. After re examination suppose the conclusion is the same and everything in the original report is confirmed with no additions. Will you accept those findings and be satisfied the truth has been served?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Tobster said:


> Let's suppose you get your wish and 'things looked at a little more closely'. After re examination suppose the conclusion is the same and everything in the original report is confirmed with no additions. Will you accept those findings and be satisfied the truth has been served?


I will let the matter drop. While I am no engineer, I understand some things. When things do not seem appropriate, I ask questions. The questions that I have been asking have not been sincerely addressed since the report was offered to the public.

The purpose of this thread is for discussion, I really do not care if people flame me, I would prefer not but such is life. This event changed the course of America. For all investigative purposes, the investigation appears to have been a whitewash. Murby does not believe that there was molten steel, he will not enter an honest conversation relating to the proof offered. This is the conversation that I wished to avoid.

There are many smart people here, many who see things that I do not, things that I cannot, I was hoping, for a change, for honest tit for tat. -> I say that the box was black and provide a picture. Someone else says it was a deep purple and because of the angle of the photo that I produced that my proof showed what appeared to be black but that it was not as it seems.

As a former military person, I understand the external threats that we must deal with. I have also seen what our government will do to get what it wants. Being aware of these two things, I really do not want to make a casual decision about what I believe.

On another thread, I showed that there is no real reason that I should stand strong in any opinion that I develop using the information on the internet. I would ask others, why do you accept that which was offered up to you so that you might say, "This is the Truth."?

Can you be so certain that this event was masterminded by a person in a cave in Afghanistan? An attack that included hijacked airplanes that were supposed to crash into buildings executed on the very same day that our military was strung out everywhere on a drill to practice protecting our country from hijacked airplanes crashing into buildings? An attack that essentially defeated all of the protections in place to keep us safe?

Final question: Does the Pentagon have an active array of anti-aircraft defenses in case of an attack by air?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Molten metal and molten steel are not the same thing. Other metals will also rust.


Shine said:


> I will let the matter drop. While I am no engineer, I understand some things. When things do not seem appropriate, I ask questions. The questions that I have been asking have not been sincerely addressed since the report was offered to the public.
> 
> The purpose of this thread is for discussion, I really do not care if people flame me, I would prefer not but such is life. This event changed the course of America. For all investigative purposes, the investigation appears to have been a whitewash. Murby does not believe that there was molten steel, he will not enter an honest conversation relating to the proof offered. This is the conversation that I wished to avoid.
> 
> ...


I asked all those same questions myself. I am an engineer and have also studied fire engineering as an instructor for fire depts. Just do what I did and answer each question yourself by non biased means. Maybe you will have different answers and can put them in here. 

As to one of your questions no I cant imagine someone from a cave plotting this. I also cant see an investor plotting this whole thing just because he couldnt remove the asbestos in the building more cost efficient than paying someone to fly a plane through it. I also cant think of our government having no better option than this to start a war. With all the propaganda the masses believe (and I see it on here daily) it would be so easy to wag the dog for a little middle east war without all that. 

Dont worry about what others think either. Just look at it with an open mind come to your own conclusions and to heck with everyone else. 

Including me.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You''re just parroting buzzwords.
> There is no "military grade Nano Thermite".
> 
> It's just powdered finely Aluminum and Iron Oxide.


I hates buzzwords... AND... I hate quoting Wikipedia.

Nonetheless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

"Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[2] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[3] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy."

If the melted aluminium was able to fuse with the other components, how was it able to leave nano-scale particles across the entire WTC site? Unless you are just going to say that the scientists that are making this statement are foolish people that were masterminds at faking things then, please, support your allegations where scientists have reviewed their finding and have either proved that there were no nano-scale particles consisting of the components necessary to produce Nano-Thermite or please show that these scientists are involved in russian collusion... [sorry, could not help myself]


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

You guys think some caveman in Afghanistan masterminded 911? LOL

Do you guys know anything about Bin Laden? Perhaps you should read up on him a bit.. He was well equipped to mastermind the 911 attacks. 
That said, I think the term "mastermind" is a bit glorious.. doesn't take a rocket scientist to smash a plane into a building.

Google him and read.. then come back and tell me you don't think he had the brains....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Molten metal and molten steel are not the same thing. Other metals will also rust.
> 
> I asked all those same questions myself. I am an engineer and have also studied fire engineering as an instructor for fire depts. Just do what I did and answer each question yourself by non biased means. Maybe you will have different answers and can put them in here.
> 
> ...


I have been looking at the whole situation with an open mind. What temperature does steel change from a solid to a liquid? If there was liquid steel found in the base of the towers, 1, 2 and 7, what caused that steel to melt?

If a building is stronger at the base than at the pinnacle, how could the pinnacle collapse into the base at close to freefall speeds? [view the videos of all of the collapses]

Even if WTC7 was damaged by falling debris and had a number of fires burning on numerous floors, how was it possible that the top of the building maintained it's cohesiveness so as that the upper parapets were not distorted as it collapsed into it's own footprint? How was it possible to watch the building maintain the horizontal alignment of the roof line as that roof line was measured to have achieved a speed similar to something dropped from that height with NOTHING under it for a period of 2.5 seconds" Where did all of those supporting structures go?

2.5 seconds equates to approximately 8 floors. Did all of those support structures magically disappear at exactly the same moment? Why was there no mention of WTC 7 in the governments report? What entities were housed within WTC 7?

Did Donald Rumsfeld state publicly on September 10th that there was $2.3 Trillion missing from the military budget as evaluated from the past 10 years? Where was the information regarding those losses being kept, what entity was investigating that loss? 

If anyone wants me to stand down, provide a reasonable answer to the above.

You said: "I also cant think of our government having no better option than this to start a war. " 

I too, want to believe as you. I want to believe that our government is as good as the people. I have read the whole release of the documents that outlines Operation Ajax. I want to believe in my heart that this information is false.

Help me to believe that our government, our representatives are altruistic, that they have you and I in mind when they do things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> You guys think some caveman in Afghanistan masterminded 911? LOL
> 
> Do you guys know anything about Bin Laden? Perhaps you should read up on him a bit.. He was well equipped to mastermind the 911 attacks.
> That said, I think the term "mastermind" is a bit glorious.. doesn't take a rocket scientist to smash a plane into a building.
> ...


Who trained Osama? Who educated Osama? Who armed Osama? Tell me oh, wise one? Now tell me, who financed him?

It does, however, suggest that someone that had some sort of a super-genius mind could put together an attack that could defeat each and every plan that might have been in place to protect this, our country, from an attack of a sort where we were training to stop on the exact same day, don't you think? What are the odds of that? Or could there have been some sort of collusion?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Whenever I hear of some super secret massive conspiracy I remind myself that collectively we have great imaginations and low intelligence.

It all sounds good in theory, but we aint that smart.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> If the melted aluminium was able to fuse with the other components, *how was it able to leave nano-scale particles across the entire WTC site*?


There's no evidence it did.
There's just the unsubstantiated claims by one promoting the conspiracy theory.



Shine said:


> What temperature does steel change from a solid to a liquid? *If* there was liquid steel found in the base of the towers, 1, 2 and 7, *what caused that steel to melt?*


There were intense fires in the building after the plane's impact.
That heat could easily melt metals.

People have been melting metals for thousands of years with nothing but wood or coal.



Shine said:


> Even if WTC7 was damaged by falling debris and had a number of fires burning on numerous floors, how was it possible that the top of the building maintained it's cohesiveness so as that the upper parapets were not distorted as it *collapsed into it's own footprint*?


It didn't do that.
You just keep parroting the lie.
We've had this discussion several time over the past few years, and you've added nothing new.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

This thread is political and should be in the dark forum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread is political and should be in the pit.


Report it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> I have been looking at the whole situation with an open mind. What temperature does steel change from a solid to a liquid? If there was liquid steel found in the base of the towers, 1, 2 and 7, what caused that steel to melt?
> 
> If a building is stronger at the base than at the pinnacle, how could the pinnacle collapse into the base at close to freefall speeds? [view the videos of all of the collapses]
> 
> ...


A smouldering fire in the basement can reach that temperature. It's when heat is allowed to escape that helps cool it down. 

I've already explained the collapse. There inner beams weakened. That caused them to sag down causing the columns to lean toward the inside. When the upper floors started falling the added weight caused undue stress on the already weakened lower columns.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> I have been looking at the whole situation with an open mind. What temperature does steel change from a solid to a liquid? If there was liquid steel found in the base of the towers, 1, 2 and 7, what caused that steel to melt?
> 
> If a building is stronger at the base than at the pinnacle, how could the pinnacle collapse into the base at close to freefall speeds? [view the videos of all of the collapses]
> 
> ...


I don't believe the government is altruistic. There is just an easier way to start a war than this.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread is political and should be in the dark forum.



Can you show one instance of any mention of a political party or anyone speaking of this or that politician?

Are you upset and wish that it was in the Dark Rooms?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I don't believe the government is altruistic. There is just an easier way to start a war than this.


What if war was only one of the necessary outcomes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread is political and should be in the dark forum.


Report it as per the rules, since you're big on adhering to them.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> If anyone wants me to stand down, provide a reasonable answer to the above.


That's not actually very likely to happen. 

Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.. Rationality is the basis of reason.. so its not really possible, or at least not likely, to provide a rational or reasonable answer to someone who's fundamental basic thoughts are irrational.

Its like painting a room black to try and lighten it up.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> That's not actually very likely to happen.
> 
> Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.. Rationality is the basis of reason.. so its not really possible, or at least not likely, to provide a rational or reasonable answer to someone who's fundamental basic thoughts are irrational.
> 
> Its like painting a room black to try and lighten it up.


Whatever. Don't you have some more Christians to bash? You couldn't possibly contribute to this thread either positive or negative. Along with you now...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Whatever. Don't you have some more Christians to bash? You couldn't possibly contribute to this thread either positive or negative. Along with you now...


I did contribute.. I tried to educate you on why the thermite thing was a load of crap and you failed to accept it.. Pretty much the definition of irrationality.

Now you put up a reply requesting a reasonable answer.. you got a reasonable answer and you rejected it.. all I did was to explain why it was rejected.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> I did contribute.. I tried to educate you on why the thermite thing was a load of crap and you failed to accept it.. Pretty much the definition of irrationality.
> 
> Now you put up a reply requesting a reasonable answer.. you got a reasonable answer and you rejected it.. all I did was to explain why it was rejected.


I saw what you offered. You ate up all of the words in the Commission Report, you're a good little citizen.

How much Nano-Thermite have you made? You do not want to talk about that right? Explain how nano sized thermite particles were found all over the WTC area? What about the iron spheres? Magic? Came from God? What?

Explain why what NIST said that happened in their computer regeneration of the free fall collapse of WTC7 does not even come close to what we were seeing with our lying eyes.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

This.....







Looks exactly like this..... Right?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> This thread is political and should be in the dark forum.


Lol


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> How much Nano-Thermite have you made?


Well, I've made about 40 lbs of thermite.. have ignited a bit less than half of that.



> You do not want to talk about that right? Explain how nano sized thermite particles were found all over the WTC area? What about the iron spheres? Magic? Came from God? What?


There is no such thing as nano sized thermite particles because thermite is just a name for two powders mixed together.. its not a chemistry like TNT or C4 where a molecule or byproduct molecule can be found.

When thermite is mixed, there is no new molecule made.. no new molecule is formed or transformed.. So finding rust in the presence of aluminum in such a situation is not some mind blowing event.

And Iron spheres?? Are you kidding me with that crap? The very fact that you ask that question shows obvious and blatant ignorance on the subject. I have perfect little round iron spheres all over my work shop.. Every time I use a welder, torch, plasma cuter, grinder, or any other device which heats metal to liquid and then launches it into the air, I get perfect little round balls of metal on the floor.. They vary in size from dust particles to big enough to use in an old fashioned musket. In fact, that's how I made iron oxide a couple times.. I swept my shop floor up, put it all into a bucket, then used a magnet to separate out the little round balls of metal.. Add some salt and water, then drain.. Magic iron oxide.. Oh.. are you going to pray to me now because I understand basic chemistry?

Once again, you've been given a reasonable and RATIONAL answer.. but if using a fundamental thinking process that is irrational, and someone believes in invisible sky fairies because of being raised that way, no rational or reasonable explanation is going to satisfy.. 

In the computer software industry, they have a saying "Junk in, junk out" 

You can't pull reasonable and rational out of unreasonable and irrational.. its like trying to get water out of a rock...

If they did convene a special investigation unit (which they already did), you'd claim it was tainted by some controlling force or conspiracy (which is what you're doing).. and if they convened an investigation into that investigation, you'd claim that was also tainted.. and if they convened an investigation into the investigation that investigated the original investigation, you'd also claim that was tainted. 

I would say it would never end, but the reality is it does end.. the conspiracy theorist either gets too old to care, or finds some other contrived conspiracy to occupy their thoughts... except on Sunday's.. that's saved for... well.. you know... 

Irrational beliefs = Irrational behaviors..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow... after reading your first statement, there's no further need to read on. No such thing as Nano-Thermite. OK... next player.

You make up all of these things that I "say" but haven't said, it would pure stupidity to even discuss anything with you. 

Illogical stances = illogical conclusions. i.e... garbage in - garbage out


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> I will let the matter drop.........


I’ll remember that you didn’t.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Wow... after reading your first statement, there's no further need to read on. No such thing as Nano-Thermite. OK... next player.
> 
> You make up all of these things that I "say" but haven't said, it would pure stupidity to even discuss anything with you.
> 
> Illogical stances = illogical conclusions. i.e... garbage in - garbage out


This is a molecule of TNT









This is a molecule of Semtex










This is a molecule of Nitroglycerine










*Please show me a molecule of Thermite*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> I’ll remember that you didn’t.


Excuse me? Has this issue had an open and unbiased airing? How can you make "your" ruling if you do not allow for what I see as reasonable? Go ahead, remember what you will. I'll mark you down as letting this slide, not really caring about what actually happened. To busy to pay attention.

ETA: I won't let you off that easy. Watch the NIST rendition of WTC 7 collapsing, then watch what really happened - tell me that you believe the NIST representation of what happened. This was AFTER NIST did not even mention WTC 7 collapsing in the initial Commission's report and AFTER NIST omitted the fact that WTC 7 fell for 2.5 seconds at free fall speeds. Tell me, how can a building collapse in and upon itself at free fall speeds?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> This is a molecule of TNT
> 
> 
> This is a molecule of Semtex
> ...


Did you have something to add? I am sure that you understand what components are required to compose thermite. If this is true, why are you doing an end around with a trick question? Do you ever have an honest and open discussion?

Let me hear you say it again... - No such thing as nano-thermite. Come on - please?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Excuse me? Has this issue had an open and unbiased airing? How can you make "your" ruling if you do not allow for what I see as reasonable? Go ahead, remember what you will. I'll mark you down as letting this slide, not really caring about what actually happened. To busy to pay attention.



You didn’t “let the matter drop”. Pure and simple.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> You didn’t “let the matter drop”. Pure and simple.


Please explain further. I posted a Petition requesting that this unheard [not published in the Commission's Report] information be placed before a Grand Jury. I asked for some discussion. You've provided nothing. I cannot let the matter drop until the unheard information is presented before the Grand Jury.

I also stand by what I replied to you, and what I added to the post that you replied to. I would bet that you will not re-read and reply to the added information.

Maybe you want to re-read your copy of the government report telling you what to believe?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Please explain further........


You claimed to quit, I didn’t


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> You claimed to quit, I didn’t


Really? your question was what would I do if I got what I asked for and the new Grand Jury hearing happened and proved beyond a doubt that there was nothing that I am declaring to be true, I said the I would drop it. Now you seem to want to make believe that the Grand Jury has convened and has done as you have said... Can you send me the report where the final findings of this Grand Jury have been rendered?

Or, if possible, can you explain what the heck that you are talking about?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Really? your question was what would I do if I got what I asked for and the new Grand Jury hearing happened and proved beyond a doubt that there was nothing that I am declaring to be true, I said the I would drop it. Now you seem to want to make believe that the Grand Jury has convened and has done as you have said... Can you send me the report where the final findings of this Grand Jury have been rendered?
> 
> Or, if possible, can you explain what the heck that you are talking about?


You’re terribly confused.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Did you have something to add? I am sure that you understand what components are required to compose thermite. If this is true, why are you doing an end around with a trick question? Do you ever have an honest and open discussion?
> 
> Let me hear you say it again... - No such thing as nano-thermite. Come on - please?


Shine, I don't care what you believe.. just do yourself a favor and don't send them your hard earned money.. Its a scam..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> You’re terribly confused.


Well, that might be... Your first post where you asked your question is not to be found. Interesting.

If the mods are juking this thread then all bets are off.

So, Skamp... Did you ask me what I would do if I was proven wrong should this new petition be allowed to be brought before a Grand Jury?

I believe that I responded that if this evidence was allowed to be presented and they said nothing that the petition alleges is true that I would drop it.

Nonetheless, to repeat myself, sure... if they allow this evidence to be presented and the Grand Jury finds no validity to it, yes... I will forever drop it...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Shine, I don't care what you believe.. just do yourself a favor and don't send them your hard earned money.. Its a scam..


Another scam on your part. Who says that I sent any money to anyone? No such thing as Nano-Thermite?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Another scam on your part. Who says that I sent any money to anyone? No such thing as Nano-Thermite?


What is up with you being stuck on this "no such thing as nano-thermite" ???? Nano-thermite is just regular thermite that has smaller particles. 

Lets see if we can do this a different way.. 

Lets assume there's a conspiracy and see how this plays out. First question: Why would they choose to use NanoThermite? Why not just use regular thermite or C4 explosives or TNT or something? Why NanoThermite? What are the benefits or reason to use such an exotic material?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> What is up with you being stuck on this "no such thing as nano-thermite" ???? Nano-thermite is just regular thermite that has smaller particles.
> 
> Lets see if we can do this a different way..
> 
> Lets assume there's a conspiracy and see how this plays out. First question: Why would they choose to use NanoThermite? Why not just use regular thermite or C4 explosives or TNT or something? Why NanoThermite? What are the benefits or reason to use such an exotic material?


lol.... smaller particles. Nano-thermite - more energy, faster burn. You being as smart as you tell us that you are should have readily grasped this aspect. Nano-thermite can be infused into a polymer for ease of application, you know, like paint? Before 9/11 was any portion of the WTC complex shut down for maintenance? Did this maintenance require a complete power down for more than just a few hours? ...more than just a few days? What was the maintenance performed and what was the name of the company that performed the maintenance? During the power down, what happened to the magnetically locked doors? ...the security cameras? Who owned the company that provided the maintenance for the WTC complex during this period of time? 

You tell me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Watch the NIST rendition of WTC 7 collapsing, then watch what really happened - tell me that you believe the NIST representation of what happened. This was AFTER NIST did not even mention WTC 7 collapsing in the initial Commission's report and AFTER NIST omitted the fact that WTC 7 fell for 2.5 seconds at *free fall speed*s. Tell me, how can a building collapse in and upon itself at *free fall speed*s?


I knew those buzzwords were coming.
*Everything* falls at "free fall speed" unless there is too much air resistance:

32 FPS/PS

We've done this topic to death more than once.
Nothing is going to change.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> lol.... smaller particles. Nano-thermite - more energy, faster burn. You being as smart as you tell us that you are should have readily grasped this aspect. Nano-thermite can be infused into a polymer for ease of application, you know, like paint? Before 9/11 was any portion of the WTC complex shut down for maintenance? Did this maintenance require a complete power down for more than just a few hours? ...more than just a few days? What was the maintenance performed and what was the name of the company that performed the maintenance? During the power down, what happened to the magnetically locked doors? ...the security cameras? Who owned the company that provided the maintenance for the WTC complex during this period of time?
> 
> You tell me.


Ok. so you're implying that they painted the beams with nano-thermite..?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Ok. so you're implying that they painted the beams with nano-thermite..?


Silly you... how could you do that with something that does not exist?

That would be one possible application out of many.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I knew those buzzwords were coming.
> *Everything* falls at "free fall speed" unless there is too much air resistance:
> 
> 32 FPS/PS
> ...


Everything falls at free fall speeds except those things that are falling and unable to reach that speed because of resistance, like something below it that is thicker than air? 

The point being is that the 47th floor of a building should not, at no point in time, be able to reach free fall speeds unless the resistance caused by any of the other 46 floors is somehow no longer providing any resistance.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Silly you... how could you do that with something that does not exist?
> 
> That would be one possible application out of many.


Wait.. now you're saying nano thermite doesn't exist??? Huh? 

I'm just asking basic questions.. You postulated they used nano thermite, I'm asking why and how... Please explain the why and how so I can understand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Everything falls at free fall speeds except those things that are falling and unable to reach that speed because of resistance, like something below it that is thicker than air?


Momentum and inertia can overcome resistance.

All these conspiracy conclusions are based on lies, half truths and speculations about *2.5 seconds* of video.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> lol.... smaller particles. Nano-thermite - more energy, faster burn. You being as smart as you tell us that you are should have readily grasped this aspect. Nano-thermite can be infused into a polymer for ease of application, you know, like paint? Before 9/11 was any portion of the WTC complex shut down for maintenance? Did this maintenance require a complete power down for more than just a few hours? ...more than just a few days? What was the maintenance performed and what was the name of the company that performed the maintenance? During the power down, what happened to the magnetically locked doors? ...the security cameras? Who owned the company that provided the maintenance for the WTC complex during this period of time?
> 
> You tell me.


You have to be joking to think that a crew can scrap off the asbestos and paint thermite paint in a two day weekend on half of the South tower. 

How does that explain the other tower that wasn't shut down the same weekend?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Hey Shine, check this out, this just happened last night...
http://time.com/5261096/sao-paulo-brazil-high-rise-fire-collpase/

It must have been nano-thermite!!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Murby said:


> Hey Shine, check this out, this just happened last night...
> http://time.com/5261096/sao-paulo-brazil-high-rise-fire-collpase/
> 
> It must have been nano-thermite!!


I saw a photo of that today. The 26 floor structure collapsed in a heap at the base of it leaving the surrounding buildings mostly intact.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> You have to be joking to think that a crew can scrap off the asbestos and paint thermite paint in a two day weekend on half of the South tower.
> 
> How does that explain the other tower that wasn't shut down the same weekend?


The whole point of this thread is for discussion. I do not know what happened. There continues to be questions that remain unanswered. I do not know if painting some kind of slurry of nano-thermite on any beam would weaken it sufficiently to matter, I do not know how it could be triggered it that was the case. I don't have the answers. If you read the Petition in the original post, that explains the whole gist of this matter, I only know a little and what launched me onto this tirade is WTC7. That right there cannot happen. One beam walks off of it's foundation due to one of many fires within that building which had been damaged by falling debris being able to collapse in a "global" fashion with all of the supports losing their ability to maintain support resulting in what appears to be a synchronous failure of the entire building.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Momentum and inertia can overcome resistance.
> 
> All these conspiracy conclusions are based on lies, half truths and speculations about *2.5 seconds* of video.


There are no speculations, NIST reluctantly confirmed the 2.5 seconds of actual free fall speeds. Any resistance will prevent something from reaching the velocity of "free fall". The video was for the whole period of collapse, the free fall portion was for 2.5 seconds so there is more video than 2.5 seconds.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Hey Shine, check this out, this just happened last night...
> http://time.com/5261096/sao-paulo-brazil-high-rise-fire-collpase/
> 
> It must have been nano-thermite!!


Not much to go on in regards to comparing the 27 floor building and those of the WTC complex that failed but I will say that there are now 4 steel structured high rise buildings that have collapsed that are associated with the cause of fire. Kinda interesting, right? 

I'll watch this news story to see just how similar this building's construction was to the others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Any resistance will prevent something from reaching the velocity of "free fall".


Obviously not.
You really can't tell from 2.5 seconds of video.
It's all guesswork.



Shine said:


> The video was for the whole period of collapse, the free fall portion was for 2.5 seconds so there is more video than 2.5 seconds.


All the "free fall speed" BS is based on those 2.5 seconds.
The video doesn't show the damage to the lower floors where the collapse began.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Wait.. now you're saying nano thermite doesn't exist??? Huh?
> 
> I'm just asking basic questions.. You postulated they used nano thermite, I'm asking why and how... Please explain the why and how so I can understand.


Why don't you read the petition? Then we'll go from there? All I see is you dancing at the edges of this issue with your Snipe Gun taking pot shot after pot shot.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obviously not.
> You really can't tell from 2.5 seconds of video.
> It's all guesswork.
> 
> ...


All of those unknowns and you feel that the government agency tasked with explaining what happened did a good job? Does the recreation resemble what our lying eyes see? Or is it different? If it is different then we would have to say that - "Hmmm... something else must have happened." - Right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> If you read the Petition in the original post, that explains the whole gist of this matter


When I clicked on the link all I saw was a page asking if you want to sign, and how much *money *you want to contribute.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> All of those *unknowns* and you feel that the government agency tasked with explaining what happened did a good job?


There are no "unknowns"
I said *that video* didn't show the damage, but other views did.

Thermite is often used to cut large beams in factories so that in itself could explain microscopic Aluminum particles.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Why don't you read the petition? Then we'll go from there? All I see is you dancing at the edges of this issue with your Snipe Gun taking pot shot after pot shot.


LOL
Now I'm left figuring out if 1) You realize how absurd and ridiculous it is but don't want to admit it, or 2) You really do still think there's some conspiracy. 

Option 1 I can understand.. 
Option 2.. well.. that's just bad.. really bad.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> LOL
> Now I'm left figuring out if 1) You realize how absurd and ridiculous it is but don't want to admit it, or 2) You really do still think there's some conspiracy.
> 
> Option 1 I can understand..
> Option 2.. well.. that's just bad.. really bad.


See, you really don't want to have a discussion. All you want to do is dance...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> See, you really don't want to have a discussion. All you want to do is dance...


I asked you a question, you told me to go read somewhere else... That's the definition of not wanting to talk about it..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> I asked you a question, you told me to go read somewhere else... That's the definition of not wanting to talk about it..


You asked a salacious question. You suggested that nano-thermite brought down the tower in Brazil without even knowing what type of structure it was nor to what standards it was built. Do you really want me to take you seriously? Did you read any of the petition?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> You asked a salacious question. You suggested that nano-thermite brought down the tower in Brazil without even knowing what type of structure it was nor to what standards it was built. Do you really want me to take you seriously? Did you read any of the petition?


How do you think thermite was used in 911 and why would they use thermite and not C4 or some other explosive?

That is not a "salacious question".. its clear and direct. How about answering it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> How do you think thermite was used in 911 and why would they use thermite and not C4 or some other explosive?
> 
> That is not a "salacious question".. its clear and direct. How about answering it?


Yes, I believe that the military grade nano-thermite was used judging from the testing done by non-government entities which did find un-ignited nano-thermite in the immediate areas of the WTC complexes. Do you have an answer as to how that compound might have found it's way to each and every spot where a test sample was gathered?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Yes, I believe that the military grade nano-thermite was used judging from the testing done by non-government entities which did find un-ignited nano-thermite in the immediate areas of the WTC complexes. Do you have an answer as to how that compound might have found it's way to each and every spot where a test sample was gathered?


I didn't ask you if you think it was found or not. I asked why they would use thermite and how they would use thermite. 

You claim to be familiar with some conspiracy it was used, so answer that basic fundamental question. Why would they choose to use thermite over some explosive like C4 and how did they use the thermite? 

You can claim they found peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.. but if you can't explain how they would use them to bring down the towers than its kind of irrelevant right? 

So, once again, why thermite and how would they use it?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> I didn't ask you if you think it was found or not. I asked why they would use thermite and how they would use thermite.
> 
> You claim to be familiar with some conspiracy it was used, so answer that basic fundamental question. Why would they choose to use thermite over some explosive like C4 and how did they use the thermite?
> 
> ...


First, here is information regarding what was found:

https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Second, I am not an engineer nor have I ever been involved with any sort of demolitions.

Third, the "pancake" theory espoused by the Commission's report would still have required a "resistance" component that was not witnessed in the actual collapses. In other words, something happened on that day violates what those persons well versed in physics, believe. You claim to be well versed in the laws of physics, how can tons of concrete and rigid steel supports seem to not do what they were built for, namely "support" The weakening of the floor beams is one thing, the weakening of the vertical steel beams is a total other situation.

How thick do you think the vertical steel beams were at certain points throughout the tower were? I mean, you'd have to know to make a well reasoned evaluation, right?

So, to honestly answer your questions, Why Nano-Thermite? It's cutting properties and ease of use. How? Cannot answer that as I do not know how to use any thermite component to achieve the most efficient use thereof, there are others who know how to properly use it to slice steel beams in an instant as if they were cutting through butter. [no, you don't just pile it on a slab of steel and light it with a cigarette lighter like they did in Popular Mechanics - lol]


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> The whole point of this thread is for discussion. I do not know what happened. There continues to be questions that remain unanswered. I do not know if painting some kind of slurry of nano-thermite on any beam would weaken it sufficiently to matter, I do not know how it could be triggered it that was the case. I don't have the answers. If you read the Petition in the original post, that explains the whole gist of this matter, I only know a little and what launched me onto this tirade is WTC7. That right there cannot happen. One beam walks off of it's foundation due to one of many fires within that building which had been damaged by falling debris being able to collapse in a "global" fashion with all of the supports losing their ability to maintain support resulting in what appears to be a synchronous failure of the entire building.


Well, I know nothing of thermite at all. I do know construction though. It would take six months of hard work including Jack hammers and core drillers to even come close to a precise demo of that size. I also know that a job that size someone would have either talked or wound up "robbed".

No one from the Ace elevator company has been murdered or talked. Otis elevator talks smack because they lost the contract in '94 or so. Ace seems to be the likely culprit for most theorist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Third, the "pancake" theory espoused by the Commission's report would still have required a "resistance" component that was not witnessed in the actual collapses.


You keep repeating that unproven claim, knowing it's speculation based on a couple of seconds of video that only shows the upper portion of the building.

The answers aren't going to change.



Shine said:


> how can tons of concrete and rigid steel supports seem to not do what they were built for, namely "support"


Once a few of them were damaged and weakened, the remaining supports couldn't carry the added load. 

They are only strong as long as they remain vertical.
The "tons of concrete" add no support.
It's all held up by the steel framework


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> First, here is information regarding what was found:
> 
> https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
> 
> ...


That's what heat does to steel... it makes perfect sense. Also, there's no practical way to weaken a vertical steel surface with thermite.. it would just run down and drip off. And nano-thermite would burn so fast as to not impart any significant amounts of energy into the steel. It would be like me taking my oxy-acetylene torch and holding it on the beam for 10 seconds.. its not enough to do anything as the beam would simply dissipate the thermal energy. Thermite works to cut and weld steel because the reaction is slow and long lasting.. Nano-thermite is more of an explosive... and an explosive would generate a shock wave.. and that much explosive would generate a huge shock wave. 

Do you not think its funny that they're asking for money while trying to convince people something is true? Hmm.. where else do we see that type of behavior? 



> So, to honestly answer your questions, Why Nano-Thermite? It's cutting properties and ease of use. How? Cannot answer that as I do not know how to use any thermite component to achieve the most efficient use thereof, there are others who know how to properly use it to slice steel beams in an instant as if they were cutting through butter. [no, you don't just pile it on a slab of steel and light it with a cigarette lighter like they did in Popular Mechanics - lol]


You should research nano-thermite.. I mean really read up on it and understand its properties and how it works.. how its manufactured, etc.
You will find out that nano-thermite is basically like gun powder.. its not an explosive but it burns so fast it might as well be considered an explosive. Ever hear of using gun powder to cut steel? Nope? There's a reason for that.. it doesn't get hot enough for long enough to overcome thermal dissipation of the material it's cutting... and it doesn't detonate (I'm using the word losely) fast enough to actually cut through steel like C4 would. 

So thermite would be a horrible choice.. absolutely mind boggling, incredibly stupid, and moronic choice to use. 

But the word "thermite" is not known in public circles much, and the word "nano-thermite" just sounds too cool (no pun intended) to pass up as a conspiracy theory material.. Insert the word "nano" into a material and it becomes a magnet for public attention.

Also, and I wasn't going to mention this because the information I have is sparse.. But when you're googling, go look at how much "nano-thermite" we were able to produce 17 years ago.. its measured in a few kilograms per month and is obscenely expensive and dangerous to produce. It's also difficult to use and extremely dangerous to handle because, unlike normal thermite, nano-thermite is incredibly shock sensitive.. almost to the point of being like Nitroglycerine.. 

Think about where they would put the thermite, where the planes impacted and why no explosions blew out windows on any floors above or below the impact area.. Do you think they told the pilots to impact the buildings at certain floors and they did so successfully and that's where all the thermite was at? Its just preposterous.. 

It would be near impossible to use the stuff today let alone 17 years ago.. but it sounds cool, and people who buy into these conspiracy theories tend not to be the most intellectual folks when it comes to understanding science. But I do understand science, and I can tell you the whole nano-thermite thing, or even just normal thermite, is a load of hogwash.. 

Oh, and they need your money "for the cause".. LOL


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> You should research nano-thermite.. I mean really read up on it and understand its properties and how it works.. how its manufactured, etc.
> 
> So thermite would be a horrible choice.. absolutely mind boggling, incredibly stupid, and moronic choice to use.
> 
> Also, and I wasn't going to mention this because the information I have is sparse.. But when you're googling, go look at how much "nano-thermite" we were able to produce 17 years ago.. its measured in a few kilograms per month and is obscenely expensive and dangerous to produce. It's also difficult to use and extremely dangerous to handle because, unlike normal thermite, nano-thermite is incredibly shock sensitive.. almost to the point of being like Nitroglycerine..


I should research nano-thermite? You who recently said that there was no such thing and now you are an expert on it? How do the Demo people cut their steel beams now? Maybe you should look into that.

Also... If you are going to make a statement, why not just link to the "sparse" information that you have? Shock sensitive? sure, I'd like to see that link too.

You never provided an answer regarding the thermite chips throughout the area or the PDF that I posted.

Wow, now you're an expert.


----------



## catsboy (May 14, 2015)

There is a whole video series on you tube debunking the whole thing, they have a whole video on "nano thermite". They interview a bunch of "truthers".


----------



## Vjklander (Apr 24, 2018)

If nothing else, can we all agree that is a travesty that Rick Rescorla has not been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I wonder why Rescorla has not yet received it?


----------



## Vjklander (Apr 24, 2018)

Probably because munerous levels of government are just too embarrassed to acknowledge him.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Nothing wrong with questioning investigations. There are always unanswered questions and information kept hidden from the public. The Kennedy assassination papers are an example. Some were released last year but others are still sealed.

Personally I would like a sensible answer as to why the Korean plane was ordered to turn ON its hijack signal. And why for years it was not mentioned that there were two planes.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

He was an amazing man and gave his life saving others. Because he questioned all sorts of things about the original attack on the Towers and really did not trust what he was being told he was prepared.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

catsboy said:


> There is a whole video series on you tube debunking the whole thing, they have a whole video on "nano thermite". They interview a bunch of "truthers".


Really... a whole video? How did they come by the "nano-thermite"? Did they dump a pile on some steel and light it off? Or did they fashion cutter charge receptacles and then load them with the nano-thermite?

Links?


----------



## Vjklander (Apr 24, 2018)

emdeengee said:


> He was an amazing man and gave his life saving others. Because he questioned all sorts of things about the original attack on the Towers and really did not trust what he was being told he was prepared.


There is a most excellent article about him in - of all places - the New Yorker Magazine.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Well, that might be... Your first post where you asked your question is not to be found. Interesting.
> 
> If the mods are juking this thread then all bets are off.
> 
> ...



No, no I did not. And the false claim that I did seems to fit the MO. 

And while you were running around like your hair is on fire, I actually got something done today.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> No, no I did not. And the false claim that I did seems to fit the MO.
> 
> And while you were running around like your hair is on fire, I actually got something done today.


Good, I'm happy for you. I am getting lots done today too...

I have figured out what happened. You attempted to reply to post #20 where I replied to Tobster's question. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand that I answered his question with the statement of "I will stand down." Did you understand what his question asked?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Good, I'm happy for you. I am getting lots done today too...
> 
> I have figured out what happened. You attempted to reply to post #20 where I replied to Tobster's question. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand that I answered his question with the statement of "I will stand down." Did you understand what his question asked?


I’m glad you got to practice some critical reading.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> I’m glad you got to practice some critical reading.


Thanks much. Did you understand Tobster's question to me?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

I can’t speak for Tobster. 

You’ve too much second, third, etc in this thread.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> I can’t speak for Tobster.
> 
> You’ve too much second, third, etc in this thread.


lol... have a nice day...


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> Yes, I believe that the military grade nano-thermite was used judging from the testing done by non-government entities which did find un-ignited nano-thermite in the immediate areas of the WTC complexes. Do you have an answer as to how that compound might have found it's way to each and every spot where a test sample was gathered?


What is "military grade" thermite vs regular old thermite (what, "civilian grade")?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> What is "military grade" thermite vs regular old thermite (what, "civilian grade")?


"Military grade" is refined Thermite. It has a general size of 10 to 100 nano-meters. You would need a electron microscope to view the chips.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> "Military grade" is refined Thermite. It has a general size of 10 to 100 nano-meters. You would need a electron microscope to view the chips.


Isn't that just "nano-thermite"? What makes it "military grade" as compared to other "nano-thermites"?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Isn't that just "nano-thermite"? What makes it "military grade" as compared to other "nano-thermites"?


"Military Grade" refers to the investigation of nominal grades of Thermite, exploring what happens when the active particles are reduced in size. The reduction of Thermite and Thermate increases the ignition rates and the amount of energy released. Thermite and Thermate have been used for quite some time. 

Why it is essentially called "military Grade" is that few entities have the capacity to reduce any complementary materials to the nano scale.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Although Shine is a bit confused on this, there is no difference between military grade thermite and regular thermite.

If you were able to get your hands on a military thermite grenade, it would contain the same exact material, in the same configuration, as normal thermite. In fact, if its commercially produced, the grenade material and the stuff the guys use to weld train tracks together, might have come from the same production batch. 

What shine is referring to in his whole 911 conspiracy thing, is a high tech version of thermite.. Its still the same materials, but the particle size of the powders are much smaller. Kind of like going from the consistency of beach sand to something more like super fine graphite powder.. the physical size of the particles that make up the components are just smaller. Because the particles are smaller, they have greater surface area and that means a much faster reaction.. so fast, it almost becomes an explosive as the material experiences deflagration (subsonic).. to the naked eye, it would probably seem to be an actual detonation (supersonic).

Nano-thermite is problematic, which is why it hasn't found its way into main stream use.. and one (of many) of the big problems is the oxidation of the aluminum.

Most people think a piece of aluminum is just aluminum.. but its not.. Aluminum, like oxygen, is highly reactive, and when in the presence of oxygen (atmosphere), the aluminum almost instantaneously "rusts".. except its not the orange rust we're used to seeing on iron, but its basically the same thing.. Iron forms Iron Oxide, aluminum forms Aluminum Oxide. The biggest difference is that it takes a while for iron to rust where as aluminum oxidizes almost instantly upon contact with oxygen. 

So any aluminum exposed to air will oxidize.. the oxidation layer, unlike iron rust, will form a barrier between the aluminum and the atmosphere, thus stopping any further oxidation of the aluminum material. Aluminum Oxide is also incredibly tough, so tough in fact, that they make sandpaper out of it.. Yup, if you sand down your furniture, you're probably using sandpaper that's made of aluminum oxide.

So the aluminum oxide that forms is a microscopic thin layer that's more or less invisible to the naked eye.. It totally encapsulates any bare raw aluminum much like the peel of an apple. Normally this isn't a problem, even for regular thermite or aluminum fabrication.. the aluminum oxide layer is just burned off in the reaction as its not useful in the reaction because it already has the oxygen atom present. 

The thing is, the aluminum oxide layer is of uniform thickness (more or less).. doesn't really matter if you cut a piece of aluminum 1/8 inch, 1/2 inch, or 100 micrometers in size like beach sand.. the oxide layer that forms is just as thick. 

This becomes a problem for the production of nano-scale aluminum as the aluminum oxides begins to take up a hugely significant volume as compared to the raw non-oxidized aluminum.. Sort of like magically shrinking an apple down to the size of a BB, but the skin remains the same thickness as the full size apple. Eventually you get to a point where there is more skin material than actual apple inside the skin. 

This is a big problem for the production of nano-thermite as well as other metallic based nano technologies. 

The technological challenges that must be overcome to use nano-thermite in such a situation as the 911 event are so prohibitive that it would be a gazillion times easier, a gazillion times cheaper, and a gazillion times safer, for them to have just used a bunch of Semtex explosives and claim the hijackers must have smuggled them on the plane. At least that would have made sense. 

But leave it to the conspiracy theorists to come up with some wacky story and a lawyer to figure out how to make money on it and a bunch of knuckle heads to follow along.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Although Shine is a bit confused on this, there is no difference between military grade thermite and regular thermite.


Wait, you want me to believe you're now some kind of expert on Nano-thermite? I think that you're reaching deep in your google hide away... lol.

So... as an expert on Nano-Thermite, can you explain the presence of the Nano-thermite chips in the 10 to 100 nano-meter scale found in the dust samples in and around the WTC Complexes? Can you explain why NISTs recreation of what happened to WTC 7 does not match what was videoed or are the videos fake? Wow, you are something... For some reason you seem to be fitting the position as a plant or a troll, first you say that there is no such thing as nano-thermite, now you're an expert.

I'm guessing from what you wrote above, you say now that nano-thermite can't be made, right?

Wow, I couldn't have made this stuff up if I wanted to...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Wait, you want me to believe you're now some kind of expert on Nano-thermite? I think that you're reaching deep in your google hide away... lol.


I think that's the difference between us.. I can read.. and more importantly, I'm capable of understanding what I'm reading.



> So... as an expert on Nano-Thermite, can you explain the presence of the Nano-thermite chips in the 10 to 100 nano-meter scale found in the dust samples in and around the WTC Complexes?


Nano-thermite chips? ROFLMAO.. there's no such thing.. its made up. That's what you don't seem to understand.. Thermite is Iron Oxide and Aluminum (most thermite anyhow).. These are two different grain particles, not a singular molecule. When they react, the Aluminum steals an oxygen atom from the iron which leaves behind pure iron and aluminum oxide. 

So what is a nano-thermite chip? Is it iron or aluminum oxide? and how would one identify a particle of iron or a particle of aluminum oxide as coming from a thermite reaction? They don't mix you know.. you can't chemically combine aluminum with iron.. There's no new compound made. 

You don't seem to understand this basic grade school level of chemistry 101.. and its sad.. because you sure seem to know the bible pretty well.. Perhaps less bible, more science and you'd quit arguing about this??




> Can you explain why NISTs recreation of what happened to WTC 7 does not match what was videoed or are the videos fake? Wow, you are something... For some reason you seem to be fitting the position as a plant or a troll, first you say that there is no such thing as nano-thermite, now you're an expert.


That's not what I said. Would you like me to make up something about you and molesting little boys? If you're going to play the "you said this" game, then quote what I said in full.. This is your last warning and then I go straight to what you said about little boys and we'll see how you like it when I play your game.



> I'm guessing from what you wrote above, you say now that nano-thermite can't be made, right?


Stop guessing.. read more science books.. more physics... 



> Wow, I couldn't have made this stuff up if I wanted to...


Apparently, that's EXACTLY what you did...

Off you go into wonderland.. say Hi to Alice... 

I put the effort in to explain it to you in language you'd understand since you made it clear that science and engineering, or something along those lines, is not your strong point.. Ok, I accept that.. music and arts are not my strong points.. 

I explained the basic chemistry to you and how there would be no such thing as nano-thermite chips.. It would be far more plausible if they had electron microscope images of nano-sized iron oxide particles mixed in with nano-sized aluminum particles and in the shapes, sizes, and proportions needed to make the material.. as well as some atomic absorption spectrometer data or maybe some appropriate kind of chromatograph data to back it up.
The thing is, these kinds of machines costs thousands and thousands of dollars and require specialized training to operate... and those people operating them are not likely to falsify results for some wack job's scam game... But anyone can purchase a $300 microscope on ebay and put a digital camera on it and take a picture of a red paint chip.... 

When explosive detonate, they leave behind specific compounds we can trace.. this is because explosives are complex chemistry.. thermite is not complex chemistry.. in fact, its one of the simplest chemistries there is.. two separate and distinct particles that form two more separate and distinct particles through the transfer of a single atom, neither of which can mix or combine at any stage. They don't mix.. they don't form a third uncommon compound to trace down as a byproduct of combustion.. That is, unless you want to classify Iron or Sandpaper grit as uncommon compounds.

Why do you fall for this garbage? 

Look, I put the effort in.. I even spent an hour and a half reading and learning about it.. just for you believe it or not.. and partially because its science and I'm always interested in science stuff... I'm telling you its a scam.. 

Buy into it if you like, I don't care..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

You are so full of it it is unimaginable. You read but you do not comprehend.

What were those red and grey chips found in the rubble? Scientists have weighed in - are you a scientist?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> You are so full of it it is unimaginable. You read but you do not comprehend.
> 
> What were those red and grey chips found in the rubble? *Scientists have weighed in* - are you a scientist?


What scientists weighed in and agreed it was nano-thermite? What are their names?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> What scientists weighed in and agreed it was nano-thermite? What are their names?


Please see Post #81 - the first link...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You are so full of it it is unimaginable. You read but you do not comprehend.


Says the guy who keeps repeating the *same* question, expecting a different answer this time.



Shine said:


> What were those red and grey chips found in the rubble?


They could be anything that was in the buildings or in the planes.
They in no way "prove" anything at all.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Says the guy who keeps repeating the *same* question, expecting a different answer this time.
> 
> They could be anything that was in the buildings or in the planes.
> They in no way "prove" anything at all.


I keep repeating the same questions because TPTB keeps avoiding the specific answers that were not covered by the Commission's Report, that's all...

If you were to review the Peer Reviewed paper that I linked to you'll see that their conclusion was definite, Thermite Chips ranging between 10 and 100 nano-meters in size. Commission Report said that there was no evidence of any explosives in the WTC Complex Areas and it even gets better than that, when asked about the analysis for any explosive residues or other evidence, they said that they didn't even have to check because there were no "events" which would require them to conclude that any explosives had been used.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I keep repeating the same questions because TPTB keeps avoiding the specific answers that were not covered by the Commission's Report, that's all...


They've all been answered.



Shine said:


> Commission Report said that there was no evidence of any in the WTC Complex Areas


Thermite isn't an explosive and there's no evidence it was used to bring down anything at all.



Shine said:


> they said that they didn't even have to check


No, because they know why the building collapsed.
The impacts and the fires were the sole reason.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, because they know why the building collapsed.
> The impacts and the fires were the sole reason.


Sorry, I can not accept what they said happened and I am surprised that you or anyone else who watches WTC 7 collapse accepts what was initially not in the report and then, when forced to provide what happened, all they provided was a computer simulation of what happened that does not match, even rudimently close to what was seen to have happened in the videos taken of that collapse.


ETA: I know that you are bandwidth challenged but the two videos in Post #39 will clear this up for you. NIST says that one beam walked off of a support pier and boom, the whole building falls down just like someone disappeared 8 whole floors? 47 floors collapse neatly into it's own footprint? An almost symmetrical collapse?

Come on, for that to happen that means that ALL of the supports had to fail at the exact same moment, 9 seconds total time from first movement to the last movement. 

Say that again - ALL of the supports failed at the exact same time. 47 floor building.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They've all been answered.


Please show where they have provided information as to how the thermite got there.

Please show where they have provided accurate information regarding the collapse of building 7.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Please show where they have provided information as to how the thermite got there.
> 
> Please show where they have provided accurate information regarding the collapse of building 7.


There's no real proof there was any Thermite.
There's lots of evidence there was Aluminum and steel

Why pretend we haven't done all this before?:
https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/is-the-terrorism-threat-exaggerated.543160/


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Please show where they have provided information as to how the thermite got there.
> 
> Please show where they have provided accurate information regarding the collapse of building 7.



Have you grown, sliced, and consumed a tomatoe?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> Have you grown, sliced, and consumed a tomatoe?


Probably more times than you have...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no real proof there was any Thermite.
> There's lots of evidence there was Aluminum and steel
> 
> Why pretend we haven't done all this before?:
> https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/threads/is-the-terrorism-threat-exaggerated.543160/


Well, I guess your analysis is much more succinct than the analysis done by the scientists. I hope you don't mind if I go with their findings rather than yours... 

You can find their peer reviewed analysis in Post #81.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Probably more times than you have...


Have you harvested game or domestic, sliced, and consumed?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> Have you harvested game or domestic, sliced, and consumed?


You wouldn't mind sticking to the topic would you, should your inquiries, as above, have enough importance, you know that you can start a thread where all anyone talks about is the topic that you have presented, right?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> You wouldn't mind sticking to the topic would you, should your inquiries, as above, have enough importance, you know that you can start a thread where all anyone talks about is the topic that you have presented, right?



I hoped I was. Chemistry. Lycopene and Heme Iron.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Reported.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You can find their *peer reviewed* analysis in Post #81.


"Peer reviewed" means the other conspiracy theorists who read it agreed.
They want your donations too.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Peer reviewed" means the other conspiracy theorists who read it agreed.
> They want your donations too.


...as you wish. It would have been more enjoyable with a little back and forth, but... Oh, well...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> ..as you wish. It would have been more enjoyable with *a little back and forth*, but... Oh, well...


We did it all before
Nearly word for word, two years ago.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We did it all before
> Nearly word for word, two years ago.


Nope... There was no petition on the table asking to be heard, now there is.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Nope... There was no petition on the table asking to be heard, now there is.


It's the same tired conspiracy from the same people, with no new evidence.
Nothing has changed.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Well, I guess your analysis is much more succinct than the analysis done by the scientists. I hope you don't mind if I go with their findings rather than yours...
> 
> You can find their peer reviewed analysis in Post #81.


Actually, I do mind.. 

Your link in Post #81 goes to a paper published by The Open Chemical Physics Journal which was owned by Bentham Science Publishers, which is headquartered in...... wait for it.... wait for it... 

the United Arab Emirates. 

(there isn't an animated laughing duck emoji big enough to address this one) We're going to need a bigger duck!

In essence, you're listening to the guys who crashed the planes claim "your own government helped us"

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is no longer around as it's reputation for publishing falsified information kind of ruined it.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers


Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.. and apparently in this case, more irrational beliefs.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Funny that... You know, 9/11 was probably one of the most important days with regards to the shaping this country and it's people collective destinies. Look at where we are right now, you use your cell phone to take a picture of your family, almost instantly that picture is cataloged away for who knows who's use. My wife loves Facebook, have you noticed the facial recognition algorithms in that app? 

You want to give the government a free pass - more power to you. Remember, what happens in this life is nothing to me, everything to you. You and I are sending our children into this world that we and our fathers and our father's fathers have shaped. If you do not see red flag after red flag in this event then the indoctrination has infected you. WTC 7 alone tells me that this is an engineered event, all the rest is gravy. Imagine, if these scientists did have this government over a barrel, how hard would it be to publicly vilify them?

The whole event stinks to high heaven to me, I hope I am wrong, but I will not lie down as long as I have a breath to ask for more investigation(s) into all of this event.

You guys like to make fun of me, I don't mind, it's the cost of standing one's ground.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Funny that... You know, 9/11 was probably one of the most important days with regards to the shaping this country and it's people collective destinies.


No it wasn't.. we got sucker punched.. it didn't change who we are in any significant way. 



> Look at where we are right now, you use your cell phone to take a picture of your family, almost instantly that picture is cataloged away for who knows who's use. My wife loves Facebook, have you noticed the facial recognition algorithms in that app?


Yes, technology is a double edged sword.. more like triple or quadruple edge actually. Technology allows us to do things easier and faster than ever before.. and when we abuse it like a fat child eating too many cookies, we must endure the consequences of our behaviors.
Tell your wife to get her behind off facebook.. nothing good can come from it. Tell the fat kid to stop eating sugar, nothing good can come from it.

No one is forcing you to give up your privacy, you're doing that voluntarily... they hang a carrot in front of you and tell you how delicious and healthy it is, and you go round and round and pump water. Smarten up.. get off social media or at least limit your exposure to generic information that's already publicly available.



> You want to give the government a free pass - more power to you. Remember, what happens in this life is nothing to me, everything to you. You and I are sending our children into this world that we and our fathers and our father's fathers have shaped. If you do not see red flag after red flag in this event then the indoctrination has infected you. WTC 7 alone tells me that this is an engineered event, all the rest is gravy. Imagine, if these scientists did have this government over a barrel, how hard would it be to publicly vilify them?


You have it all backwards.. I'm not telling you to trust our government blindly, but keep in mind that the government is made up of tens of thousands of people and those people go through regular change overs as elections happen. 
I find it ironic on a cosmic scale that when truth is presented to you, you won't believe it.. but someone hold up a bible and tell you about the invisible sky fairy and you're taken hook, line and sinker. That is as backwards as it can be... 



> The whole event stinks to high heaven to me, I hope I am wrong, but I will not lie down as long as I have a breath to ask for more investigation(s) into all of this event.
> You guys like to make fun of me, I don't mind, it's the cost of standing one's ground.


But you're not standing your own ground.. you're standing on grounds someone else invented for you to stand on.. and they've constructed those grounds to manipulate you... and then got you to believe those grounds are yours, and of course, they want your money.. And this is applicable to both the 911 conspiracy thing and the religion. 

The only thing that stinks is that a bunch of jerk offs hijacked some planes and successfully used them, creatively, for tactical purposes, and we got sucker punched. 
Lets face it, getting sucker punched really sucks... but there's no conspiracy. Our government is not out to get us.. they're not hatching some evil plans.. there is no secret society that controls everything.. 

When you leave behind irrational beliefs, the world will make more sense..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> No it wasn't.. we got sucker punched.. it didn't change who we are in any significant way.
> 
> 
> Yes, technology is a double edged sword.. more like triple or quadruple edge actually. Technology allows us to do things easier and faster than ever before.. and when we abuse it like a fat child eating too many cookies, we must endure the consequences of our behaviors.
> ...


You said: No it wasn't.. we got sucker punched.. it didn't change who we are in any significant way.

I say: You are wrong beyond belief. The real question is who "sucker punched" the American people? Was it really a bunch of Arabs who had partially learned to fly High Tech Airplanes? Only a few people rejected the Shock and Awe efforts on Iraq to supposedly "protect out country and our allies". How much wrong did we do to the people of Iraq?

Second and third sections: no reply.

Forth section, you said:
You have it all backwards.. I'm not telling you to trust our government blindly, but keep in mind that the government is made up of tens of thousands of people and those people go through regular change overs as elections happen. 
I find it ironic on a cosmic scale that when truth is presented to you, you won't believe it.. but someone hold up a bible and tell you about the invisible sky fairy and you're taken hook, line and sinker. That is as backwards as it can be...

I say: You again, are wrong beyond belief. There are many cogs in our government that know nothing, there is a mantra being broadcast for any and every government position that we are good, we are helping people, we are better than the other countries. Who is indoctrinated now? Who are those that manage those cogs?

Sure, I hold up my Bible, understanding that the words found within that book are directed at me and me alone, it is what I believe, you cannot understand unless something outside of you gives you the ability to understand. I cannot change that, if I prayed for your salvation until the end of my life and if you are not found within the book of life, then I have wasted my time but I have not wasted what goodness that has been placed within me because to care for your soul is to deem you worthy. To deem one worthy and to care for them and that is something that I believe we all should do.

Section 5, you said: But you're not standing your own ground.. you're standing on grounds someone else invented for you to stand on.. and they've constructed those grounds to manipulate you... and then got you to believe those grounds are yours, and of course, they want your money.. And this is applicable to both the 911 conspiracy thing and the religion.

I say: I initially bought the story hook, line and sinker. On day one we were told that this was an attack by Osama, I thought that was a reasonable accusation and went with it. It was more than a year later that I first saw WTC 7 fall down in a fashion that mirrored all of the miraculous building demolitions that had ever happened. I said: "What???" I sought out as much information as I could find, from the first view I knew that an asymmetrical building failure could not possibly collapse in that fashion. I had no idea about anything concerned with WTC 7.

I found out about the fires that were burning there, I found out about the damaged the debris caused, I found out about the agencies that were housed within that building, I found out about who just recently became the owner of that complex, I found out that this owner said that there was a decision to "pull" the building, I found out that the term "pull" is parlance from the demo crews to "bring it down", I found out that the owner recanted telling the news services that he meant that they were going to "pull" the crews from the building in anticipation of it's ultimate collapse, I found out about the BBC reported receiving advanced notice that the building was going to collapse, I watched her reveal the information regarding that collapse while the building was still standing in the background of her report, I watched the videos [3] of the collapse of that building, I waited for the government's report. 2004, the report came out. Nothing about WTC 7, a large amount of information mirroring what was presented the the Project for a New American Century a couple years before 2001, somewhat like a "New Pearl Harbor" would elicit from the people of America.

Finally, in 2011, NIST provided information regarding the Fire induced progressive collapse citing this as a cause for the individual beam that walked off of it's support[read the report]. This one beam then contributed to the entire collapse of the building. A collapse where the top of the building began it's journey downwards with little to no deformation to any of the corners nor to the face of the building for the portion of collapse visible in the videos provided. For all intents and purposes, during the collapse it appeared as if nothing was wrong with the building, that it maintained it's structure as it was plummeting towards the ground. For a period of time, 2.5 seconds, the top of the building was measured as falling at the speed of gravity, free fall. With the building falling straight down into it's foot print it should have been expected that the collapse should have demonstrated a significant resistance as there were thousands of support structures that had maintained the integrity of the building for many years. Somehow, on this day, those support structures were no where to be found, the building fell in just over nine seconds to a final height of 2 stories of rubble. 47 floors.

Reviewing the computer simulation that the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided and comparing them to the videos of the day seems to provoke more questions rather than any understanding, the two representations are significantly different.

So Murby, let's discuss "irrational beliefs" a tad more, if you do not mind.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

You are, quite literally, hunting for conspiracy theories... Once a person's mind gets trapped into such a routine, its difficult to let go. I would STRONGLY suggest you read "Moby Dick" because you have some Ahab in you...

I showed you the thermite was crap... I could show you WTC7 is crap too, but I won't. I don't have the time to go busting every conspiracy theory people come up with. You said it very clearly yourself, science and engineering are not your area's of knowledge... if that's true, why are you parroting all these little facts about WTC7? Why are you even involved in the conversation if you don't understand the conversation? Someone else is telling you what and how to think and you're following along like little ducks behind their mother. 

Its very easy for a magician to make a child believe in magic because the child doesn't understand how the illusion works.. The same exact thing is being done with the conspiracy theories.. They're directing your attention to what they want you to think you're seeing and not showing you the whole story. Couple that with Ahab syndrome, and you got your self a conspiracy theorist! 

Are you aware that conspiracy theorists are actually being studied in an attempt to figure out where the psychological disconnect is? I give it less than two decades and it will be classified as a mental illness on par with hoarders and maybe OCD or something.

Its slowly being associated with, and paralleling, religious beliefs.. Bet you didn't know that. 
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...iefs-and-detoxifying-proteins-have-in-common/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712257/

Instead of studying various conspiracy things and the bible, why don't you try studying science for a while? Just do it for a few years, sure isn't going to hurt any is it? Put away the bible, the conspiracy theories, and stick hard to science and see what happens.. its not like you're going to give anything up right? Try it..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> You are, quite literally, hunting for conspiracy theories... Once a person's mind gets trapped into such a routine, its difficult to let go. I would STRONGLY suggest you read "Moby Dick" because you have some Ahab in you...
> 
> I showed you the thermite was crap... I could show you WTC7 is crap too, but I won't. I don't have the time to go busting every conspiracy theory people come up with. You said it very clearly yourself, science and engineering are not your area's of knowledge... if that's true, why are you parroting all these little facts about WTC7? Why are you even involved in the conversation if you don't understand the conversation? Someone else is telling you what and how to think and you're following along like little ducks behind their mother.
> 
> ...



You have not shown me or anyone else anything, you just think that you have. You are a prisoner of your own mind who is trapped by your own pride.

Where, at all, did you provide a sufficient explanation for WTC 7 dropping like a rock? No where.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Reported.


What rules were broken?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> You have not shown me or anyone else anything, you just think that you have. You are a prisoner of your own mind who is trapped by your own pride.
> 
> Where, at all, did you provide a sufficient explanation for WTC 7 dropping like a rock? No where.


We were discussing the thermite conspiracy and I debunked it for you. Like I said, I could debunk WTC7 too if i was so inclined to put the effort into it. 
I put the effort into the thermite thing because I knew it would be easy.. 

I sure hope you get over it.. its not healthy..


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> What rules were broken?


Wandering aimlessly, asking me if I've ate a tomato before, then asking me if I've killed animals and ate them, bizarre stuff. Intentionally derailing the thread.


----------



## Tnff319 (May 28, 2012)

I like when people who have no training and education dispute the facts with experts. That's the problem with people and the internet. All experts now despite no formal training.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> We were discussing the thermite conspiracy and I debunked it for you. Like I said, I could debunk WTC7 too if i was so inclined to put the effort into it.
> I put the effort into the thermite thing because I knew it would be easy..
> 
> I sure hope you get over it.. its not healthy..


Debunked it? Right. You just passed over with your snide comments regarding UAE without even discussing the findings. I'll bet you didn't even look at the data. Figures... WTC 7? In your dreams - I'd love to see that just because you said you could do it...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Tnff319 said:


> I like when people who have no training and education dispute the facts with experts. That's the problem with people and the internet. All experts now despite no formal training.


Is this a general comment or was it meant to be directed at one or more people?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Debunked it? Right. You just passed over with your snide comments regarding UAE without even discussing the findings. I'll bet you didn't even look at the data. Figures... WTC 7? In your dreams - I'd love to see that just because you said you could do it...


Wow.. that's a rough way to live..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> without even discussing the findings.


They've all been discussed.
We did all this 2 years ago.
You just keep repeating yourself endlessly.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They've all been discussed.
> We did all this 2 years ago.
> You just keep repeating yourself endlessly.


If it bothers you, you can just skip on by...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> If it bothers you, you can just skip on by...


The truth doesn't bother me.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The truth doesn't bother me.


Cool, then you will probably appreciate it when this gets an open and unbiased and official airing in it's proper venue, I sure will...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Cool, then you will probably appreciate it when this gets an open and unbiased and official airing in it's proper venue, I sure will...


It already did.

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? Is the WTC the only one or are there more?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Cool, then you will probably appreciate it when this gets an open and unbiased and official airing in it's proper venue, I sure will...


It already has.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> It already did.
> 
> What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? Is the WTC the only one or are there more?


Hey look, you can't even provide an answer as to why what NIST offered as an explanation to the collapse of WTC7 differs so drastically from what the video shows - why should I even respond to you?

Please, keep your innuendos to yourself.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It already has.


A white wash has been offered and it seems that you fully accept it. What needs to be answered are the issues brought up in the petition backed by thousands of architects and engineers.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Hey look, you can't even provide an answer as to why what NIST offered as an explanation to the collapse of WTC7 differs so drastically from what the video shows - why should I even respond to you?
> 
> Please, keep your innuendos to yourself.


Nope.. I clearly debunked your thermite garbage, I'm not going to be dragged further into your delusions. 

More science, less bible.. more science, less bible. you'll feel better shortly.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Nope.. I clearly debunked your thermite garbage, I'm not going to be dragged further into your delusions.
> 
> More science, less bible.. more science, less bible. you'll feel better shortly.


Not even close... Watch this:










Or this:










Same thing as this: Right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> A white wash has been offered and it seems that you fully accept it. What needs to be answered are the issues brought up in the petition backed by thousands of architects and engineers.


Maybe if you repeat it *one more time* it will become real....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe if you repeat it *one more time* it will become real....


Maybe if I bide my time and trust in the goodness of the people in this country to give this matter the attention that it requires, then it will become real.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Send them the $100.00 they asked for to speed things along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Good luck with that.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Maybe if I bide my time and trust in the goodness of the people in this country to give this matter the attention that it requires, then it will become real.


Nope.. someone else would just come along, make up a new conspiracy about the investigation that "gave this matter the attention that it requires", publish more fraudulent papers, make up some new fraudulent scientific evidence you're incapable of comprehending, and tell you the investigation was botched..

And you'd believe them too...  because, as the science links I posted for you to read (which you probably didn't) said, some folks are just wired to believe in conspiracy garbage like this.

Those same folks usually share similar irrational beliefs.. and they all fall into the same irrational pattern. 

To prove what I just said, just go back and read this entire thread.. I educated you on what thermite is and isn't, and how there would be no such thing as "red paint chips".. I educated you on how problematic nano-thermite would be to use, then I busted your scientific paper and showed you it was an ARAB company that published the fraudulent information.. 

And you're still on the conspiracy.. A normal person, like myself, would have hung his head low and wondered how he could have been fooled so easily and then inquired on what could be done to prevent myself from being fooled again. But that's what a normal person would do.. Learn from the mistake.

You on the other hand, don't seem to want to learn from your mistake.. and I'll bet the farm that science will one day figure out its because your core beliefs are irrational and thus, it affects every other rationalization you attempt to make. Hence, a conspiracy theorist is born.

Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors. That's a rough way to live and I wouldn't with that on anyone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Wandering aimlessly, asking me if I've ate a tomato before, then asking me if I've killed animals and ate them, bizarre stuff. Intentionally derailing the thread.


My job is to enforce rules. Please review the posted rules and advise which rules have been broken.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors. That's a rough way to live and I wouldn't with that on anyone.


It is good that we have someone as smart as you to guide us through our troubled lives...


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> It is good that we have someone as smart as you to guide us through our troubled lives...


Putting aside your sarcasm being used as a psychological defense mechanism to help yourself cope, if it wasn't for me, you'd still believe nano-thermite was used to bring the towers down.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Putting aside your sarcasm being used as a psychological defense mechanism to help yourself cope, if it wasn't for me, you'd still believe nano-thermite was used to bring the towers down.


No... that's not it, it is just too funny watching you explain how much of a gift you are to humanity... I really get a kick out of it...

You really did not contribute much to the discussion at all except for some huffing and puffing... look - the door's still standing - lol

ETA: being that your effort was so lame, I am still quite certain that the nano-thermite had something to do with the collapses, what ->? - not sure but something.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

What are "thermite chips"?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

isaac338 said:


> What are "thermite chips"?


Fake stage props like magic fairy dust.. used in the 911 conspiracy thing, designed to suck money from the gullible and ignorant.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Murby said:


> Fake stage props like magic fairy dust.. used in the 911 conspiracy thing, designed to suck money from the gullible and ignorant.


Yeah, all these truther phrases like "military grade nano-thermite chips" sound like dumb marketing terms designed to con slow people into believing that some made up junk is real (like "military grade aluminum", which is really just regular old aluminum).

It'd be a lot more convincing if a truther could present an argument that didn't use made-up terms to prove their point.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

isaac338 said:


> Yeah, all these truther phrases like "military grade nano-thermite chips" sound like dumb marketing terms designed to con slow people into believing that some made up junk is real (like "military grade aluminum", which is really just regular old aluminum).
> 
> It'd be a lot more convincing if a truther could present an argument that didn't use made-up terms to prove their point.


Military grade aluminum? Isn't that the special green aluminum? LOL

When I read the whole thermite thing, I immediately knew something was fishy.. I've made thermite and have ignited rather hefty quantities of it.. 
Its very similar to the thin'ish flowing lava that comes out of a volcano once you get past all the sparks and visual effects. Looking at it with a pair of binoculars with #11 welding glass taped to the front, its an interesting reaction.. Like throwing blobs of lava onto a vertical surface, it would be near useless as it would just run off like syrup.

Edit: Come to thinking of military grade aluminum, they actually are making transparent aluminum now! Yup.. just like what we saw in Star Trek when the enterprise went back to save the whales.. 
It's being used for bullet proofing military transport vehicles.. stops a 50 cal round dead in its tracks, at just 1.5" thick. Gotta love science!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> What are "thermite chips"?


Sorry, the thermite chips that I have been speaking of are standard combinations of materials that make up a compound called "thermite" The military has pursued a process whereby they can decrease the burn time of thermite and increase the amount of output by miniaturizing the compounds down to a "nano" scale a scale where a electron microscope is necessary to view the chips. This is factual information. Many "nano-thermite chips" were found in and around the WTC complex in the resulting dust from the collapses. It is not known what part this incendiary/explosive compound played in the collapse of the buildings or even if they played a part in those collapses.

I started this thread because a team of lawyers are asking to place this information before a Grand Jury so that they might decide if more investigation is necessary.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Yeah, all these truther phrases like "military grade nano-thermite chips" sound like dumb marketing terms designed to con slow people into believing that some made up junk is real (like "military grade aluminum", which is really just regular old aluminum).
> 
> It'd be a lot more convincing if a truther could present an argument that didn't use made-up terms to prove their point.


Question: In post 150 there are three GIFs, two are of the actual videos captured during the actual event, one is what NIST told us happened. Do you see any differences? Tell us how our lying eyes see something different than what the government told us what happened.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Military grade aluminum? Isn't that the special green aluminum? LOL
> 
> When I read the whole thermite thing, I immediately knew something was fishy.. I've made thermite and have ignited rather hefty quantities of it..
> Its very similar to the thin'ish flowing lava that comes out of a volcano once you get past all the sparks and visual effects. Looking at it with a pair of binoculars with #11 welding glass taped to the front, its an interesting reaction.. Like throwing blobs of lava onto a vertical surface, it would be near useless as it would just run off like syrup.
> ...


See? You cannot have a respectful discussion about anything. You said Oh- the scientists were in an Arab Country so that automatically invalidates anything that they have said. Tell that to the european scientists that put their names behind that paper. You did not even provide a citation validating what you have claimed about the "fraudulent findings" about this group. You tell me to search to find the truth, I searched, I find sites similar to CNN and NBCNEWS that make accusations but they also attribute the "factual" accusations to unnamed sources - so, just who are you?

Show me why I should be comfortable with what the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the entity tasked to explain to the people why and how WTC7 collapsed. I have shown you and others what NIST provided for us to understand, I have provided two angles showing the actual collapse of that building. I have asked you why the representation that NIST provided shows the building twisting and crumbling. The NIST simulation did not account for the whole collapse, they withheld that portion of their explanation.

So, Murby, - you said you could explain for me the cascade that allowed WTC 7 to collapse in a fashion that allow the uppermost edge of the building to maintain a horizontal alignment to the ground, all visible corner structures maintained their integrity throughout the collapse, very little distortion was observed in the videos but the recreation provided by NIST shows something different.

If what the government tells us happened does not jive with what we can see happened with our own eyes, should we just disregard what we have seen and accept something that does not fit the facts?

You tell us how WTC 7 was able to collapse in the fashion that is shown in the videos.

Or just be quiet...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Military grade aluminum? Isn't that the special green aluminum? LOL
> 
> When I read the whole thermite thing, I immediately knew something was fishy.. I've made thermite and have ignited rather hefty quantities of it..
> Its very similar to the thin'ish flowing lava that comes out of a volcano once you get past all the sparks and visual effects. Looking at it with a pair of binoculars with #11 welding glass taped to the front, its an interesting reaction.. Like throwing blobs of lava onto a vertical surface, it would be near useless as it would just run off like syrup.
> ...


The above post proves that you are a foolish person who is not interested in facts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> You *tell us how* WTC 7 was able to collapse in the fashion that is shown in the videos.
> 
> Or just be quiet...


We have, again and again.
Google "gravity" for more information.



> Or just be quiet...


You once told me:
"If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Sorry, the thermite chips that I have been speaking of are standard combinations of materials that make up a compound called "thermite"


So, these "thermite chip compounds", are these unreacted compounds or the reacted compounds? 



> The military has pursued a process whereby they can decrease the burn time of thermite and increase the amount of output by miniaturizing the compounds down to a "nano" scale a scale where a electron microscope is necessary to view the chips. This is factual information.


The military has pursued the process? LOL.. Nano Scale aluminum (80nm) can be purchased off-the-shelf for about $20 to $30 a gram.. and the company will make the particle size anything you want for a custom order. Of course, if you expose it to the atmosphere you'll ruin it.. expose it to any significant shock and you ruin it.. expose it to moisture and you ruin it.. 



> Many "nano-thermite chips" were found in and around the WTC complex in the resulting dust from the collapses. It is not known what part this incendiary/explosive compound played in the collapse of the buildings or even if they played a part in those collapses.


LOL... because someone with a red chip and a camera says so. But hey, if its on the internet, it must be true!



> I started this thread because a team of lawyers are asking to place this information before a Grand Jury so that they might decide if more investigation is necessary.


And of course they're asking for donations because they need your money to make sure justice is done! LOL


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We have, again and again.
> Google "gravity" for more information.
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. Gravity. 

Gravity acts on all items. Where there is an unimpeded path downwards an object that is unsupported will seek to achieve a velocity that is called free fall. This is when there is nothing between the object and the path that it is pursuing.

Sure... 2.5 seconds is a short period of time. Go up on the roof of your home and try to achieve the velocity called "Free Fall" by falling straight through the support structures that hold up your roof. Get back to me on that - please?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Question: In post 150 there are three GIFs, two are of the actual videos captured during the actual event, one is what NIST told us happened. Do you see any differences? Tell us how our lying eyes see something different than what the government told us what happened.


Your GIF's are nothing but choppy low resolution video that show nothing significant.. in fact, they don't even show the beginning of the collapse. I suggest you find a youtube video of a news feed of the actual event instead of getting all your information from the conspiracy websites. I think you'll see something slightly different than your silly choppy gifs.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> So, these "thermite chip compounds", are these unreacted compounds or the reacted compounds?
> 
> 
> The military has pursued the process? LOL.. Nano Scale aluminum (80nm) can be purchased off-the-shelf for about $20 to $30 a gram.. and the company will make the particle size anything you want for a custom order. Of course, if you expose it to the atmosphere you'll ruin it.. expose it to any significant shock and you ruin it.. expose it to moisture and you ruin it..
> ...


You asked: So, these "thermite chip compounds", are these unreacted compounds or the reacted compounds?

I reply: If you had read the report you would find that the "chips" that were found were unreacted chips. Chips when tested reacted in an explosive fashion.

You replied: The military has pursued the process? LOL.. Nano Scale aluminum (80nm) can be purchased off-the-shelf for about $20 to $30 a gram.. and the company will make the particle size anything you want for a custom order. Of course, if you expose it to the atmosphere you'll ruin it.. expose it to any significant shock and you ruin it.. expose it to moisture and you ruin it..

I say: no one is talking about "nano-aluminum" This is another one of your dodges.

You said: LOL... because someone with a red chip and a camera says so. But hey, if its on the internet, it must be true!

I say: Read the peer reviewed document, if you feel that you are more capable of diagnosing the chips that were found, I suggest that you contact them for some samples for your investigation. Unless you are able to prove that their study is fraudulent, then your words mean nothing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Your GIF's are nothing but choppy low resolution video that show nothing significant.. in fact, they don't even show the beginning of the collapse. I suggest you find a youtube video of a news feed of the actual event instead of getting all your information from the conspiracy websites. I think you'll see something slightly different than your silly choppy gifs.


I provided what I provided. It is sufficient for the questions that I posed. You wish to suggest something else happened - please do so. You have not established anything that allows anyone to provide enough validation of the NIST recreation, the videos stand as proof that something else happened.

It's on you dude - prove the NIST info covers what happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Sure... 2.5 seconds is a short period of time. Go up on the roof of your home and try to achieve the velocity called "Free Fall" by falling straight through the support structures that hold up your roof. Get back to me on that - please?


Maybe the *next* time you repeat it will the the charm.



Shine said:


> It's on you dude - prove the NIST info covers what happened.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe the *next* time you repeat it will the the charm.


Tell you what... I want to make your life more simple. I've copied your reply to a Notepad document. I promise to post that reply after every third post that I make, I'll reply something like "I hope so, when the government white washes something that needs more explanation, it is important to do as they do, repeat it over and over."

OK?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I want to make your life more simple.


No, you really don't.
Let's not pretend.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, you really don't.
> Let's not pretend.


OK... but if I could, I would desire to make your life easier. I just do not know how...

I understand that you think that nothing happened on that day that does not have a valid explanation. I cannot get over the GIFs on post 150. - Sorry.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> See? You cannot have a respectful discussion about anything.


Have a respectful opinion on something and we can have a respectful conversation about it. This is like a 40 year old adult arguing for the existence of Santa Clause.



> You said Oh- the scientists were in an Arab Country so that automatically invalidates anything that they have said. Tell that to the european scientists that put their names behind that paper. You did not even provide a citation validating what you have claimed about the "fraudulent findings" about this group. You tell me to search to find the truth, I searched, I find sites similar to CNN and NBCNEWS that make accusations but they also attribute the "factual" accusations to unnamed sources - so, just who are you?


Dude, you have to be sharper than this so stop playing dumb.



> Show me why I should be comfortable with what the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the entity tasked to explain to the people why and how WTC7 collapsed. I have shown you and others what NIST provided for us to understand, I have provided two angles showing the actual collapse of that building. I have asked you why the representation that NIST provided shows the building twisting and crumbling. The NIST simulation did not account for the whole collapse, they withheld that portion of their explanation.


Trying to explain to you the dynamics of a building collapse would be like trying to explain heart surgery to a five year old. What I'm seeing from the NIST explanation seems to me to be on par with what the various video's show. I'm not that kind of engineer, but I'm not a moron either.. I can put two and two together and understand the progression.. and their explanation makes sense. 



> So, Murby, - you said you could explain for me the cascade that allowed WTC 7 to collapse in a fashion that allow the uppermost edge of the building to maintain a horizontal alignment to the ground, all visible corner structures maintained their integrity throughout the collapse, very little distortion was observed in the videos but the recreation provided by NIST shows something different.


If what the government tells us happened does not jive with what we can see happened with our own eyes, should we just disregard what we have seen and accept something that does not fit the facts?

You tell us how WTC 7 was able to collapse in the fashion that is shown in the videos.

Or just be quiet...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I'm not getting dragged into another one of your fantasies. But here's a question, do you always believe everything your eyes tell you? 

Its like, you won't believe a bunch of professionals who want to tell you the truth, but you completely accept the scammers who are lying to you and asking you for money.. What the????

Reminds me of Forrest Gump on the football field running towards the wrong goal post..


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Murby said:


> You guys think some caveman in Afghanistan masterminded 911? LOL


I suppose it's possible, but if he did he had no earthly idea that it would have brought either one of the towers down.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I suppose it's possible, but if he did he had no earthly idea that it would have brought either one of the towers down.


I was being sarcastic that they were calling him a "caveman".. Bin Laden had a good education from a wealthy family.. but folks think because he was hiding in a cave then he must be a dumb caveman.... nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Murby said:


> I was being sarcastic that they were calling him a "caveman".. Bin Laden had a good education from a wealthy family.. but folks think because he was hiding in a cave then he must be a dumb caveman.... nothing could be further from the truth.


I got that, but even if the attack was planned by a sophisticated engineering firm, they couldn't have known that it would bring down the towers. That result was off the charts.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Nevada said:


> I got that, but even if the attack was planned by a sophisticated engineering firm, they couldn't have known that it would bring down the towers. That result was off the charts.


I don't think bringing the towers down was their objective.... just crashing the planes into them and killing as many as they could seemed to be the goal. That said, I do think the pentagon was a military target for sure.. 

Terrorism objectives are not the same as military objectives.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Murby said:


> Terrorism objectives are not the same as military objectives.


That's true. But I've always thought that attacking the Pentagon was intended to send a message that not even the military was safe from terrorism.

As for the Pentagon being a strategic target, I doubt that the Pentagon attack had much impact on our military capabilities.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Nevada said:


> That's true. But I've always thought that attacking the Pentagon was intended to send a message that not even the military was safe from terrorism.
> 
> As for the Pentagon being a strategic target, I doubt that the Pentagon attack had much impact on our military capabilities.


I would be inclined to agree.. of course, who the hell knows what's going through the mind of a terrorist... I'm certainly no expert on those who think that way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Murby said:


> I would be inclined to agree.. of course, who the hell knows what's going through the mind of a terrorist... I'm certainly no expert on those who think that way.


Taking out a military target would have done a lot more damage to our military capabilities than a Pentagon strike. But the problem with military targets is that they shoot back. The Pentagon was a much softer target than, say, an aircraft carrier.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I cannot get over the GIFs on post 150. - Sorry.


That sounds like a personal problem.
Anyone can manipulate internet videos.

You should know there's no real evidence there.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> I reply: If you had read the report you would find that the "chips" that were found were unreacted chips. Chips when tested reacted in an explosive fashion.


I don't understand. What is a thermite "chip"? Chip implies a homogeneous body that's been broken up, like a metal chip or a paint chip, but thermite is just a mixture of powders (at whatever scale). It's like saying they found Tannerite "chips". 

Can you actually explain what they found without using buzzwords?


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

isaac338 said:


> ..........Can you actually explain what they found without using buzzwords?


That’s not nearly as confusing/misleading as “free fall speed”.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> I reply: If you had read the report you would find that the "chips" that were found were unreacted chips. Chips when tested reacted in an explosive fashion.


So where is the independent lab report using an electron microscope to show us these nano-particles? Also, the report was fake.. the publisher that peer-reviewed it has been shut down because they were publishing fake reports.

I suppose a little bit of photoshop work could make a convincing image of nano-particles.. so what independent lab tested this stuff?


> You replied: The military has pursued the process? LOL.. Nano Scale aluminum (80nm) can be purchased off-the-shelf for about $20 to $30 a gram.. and the company will make the particle size anything you want for a custom order. Of course, if you expose it to the atmosphere you'll ruin it.. expose it to any significant shock and you ruin it.. expose it to moisture and you ruin it..
> 
> I say: no one is talking about "nano-aluminum" This is another one of your dodges.


Umm.. then what nano-particles are we talking about then??



> You said: LOL... because someone with a red chip and a camera says so. But hey, if its on the internet, it must be true!
> 
> I say: Read the peer reviewed document, if you feel that you are more capable of diagnosing the chips that were found, I suggest that you contact them for some samples for your investigation. Unless you are able to prove that their study is fraudulent, then your words mean nothing.


What the hell Shine? I already showed you the report came from a publisher that had a reputation for publishing fake peer reviewed work.. and you still buy it??? 

Look dude, at some point and time, you're making yourself look ridiculous.. we reached that point about two pages ago.

Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Murby said:


> Look dude, at some point and time, you're making yourself look ridiculous.. we reached that point about two pages ago.


We reached that point back in 2015, which is the first time he brought up this same "proof".


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

That was before my time I guess..


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> We reached that point back in 2015, which is the first time he brought up this same "proof".



Linky please? I didn’t know this was round x with him personally


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

We have new evidence of what happened to the WTC towers.. It was SPACE ALIENS!!!!
Here it is.. can't argue with this evidence.. 911 was an Alien Attack!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Murby said:


> We have new evidence of what happened to the WTC towers.. It was SPACE ALIENS!!!!
> Here it is.. can't argue with this evidence.. *911 was an Alien Attack*!


Technically speaking that is a true statement.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> So where is the independent lab report using an electron microscope to show us these nano-particles? Also, the report was fake.. the publisher that peer-reviewed it has been shut down because they were publishing fake reports.
> 
> I suppose a little bit of photoshop work could make a convincing image of nano-particles.. so what independent lab tested this stuff?
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You showed me a verified type of anything where the group that produced it is false? Post # please?

and... unrealistic pride always leads to a fall.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> We have new evidence of what happened to the WTC towers.. It was SPACE ALIENS!!!!
> Here it is.. can't argue with this evidence.. 911 was an Alien Attack!


You'll do anything to avoid having to describe how WTC 7 was able to fall in the fashion that it did...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> I don't understand. What is a thermite "chip"? Chip implies a homogeneous body that's been broken up, like a metal chip or a paint chip, but thermite is just a mixture of powders (at whatever scale). It's like saying they found Tannerite "chips".
> 
> Can you actually explain what they found without using buzzwords?


"One would expect that the U.S. government, the F.B.I., NIST, and other scientific institutions and technical universities around the United States would be racing to examine the evidence in order to find its origin. There are, after all, not that many companies or institutions that had the ability to manufacture nano-thermite in 2000-2001. While this material may have been made in the United States, it may have been made in Europe, for example in Germany where nano-technology is quite advanced, or elsewhere. Examining the elements and micro-structure of this material will give the best clues as to its origin.










Some of the red-gray chips of super-thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Center

By clicking on the title above "Making Super Thermite" you can read about how the destructive power of this material can be greatly enhanced by charging the extremely fine particles of aluminum and iron oxide so that they combine most efficiently. This method creates an extremely powerful form of nano-thermite which greatly reduces the amount required.

http://www.bollyn.com/


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

PPM?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Part Per Million???


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Skamp said:


> PPM?


Parts per million?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Part Per Million???


jinx....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> jinx....


I had more question marks than you did... I win


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Now it's "charged" "super-thermite"? So many buzzwords! I still don't see how you can have chips of two discrete things.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Now it's "charged" "super-thermite"? So many buzzwords! I still don't see how you can have chips of two discrete things.


Have you ever looked at an integrated circuit chip? Similar to that in construction but not in functionality.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

mreynolds said:


> Parts per million?


Yes.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> Have you ever looked at an integrated circuit chip? Similar to that in construction but not in functionality.


What?

Can you elaborate? What definition of the word "chip" are you working with here?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Skamp said:


> Linky please? I didn’t know this was round x with him personally


They were already posted earlier in the thread


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Skamp said:


> Yes.


Sorry, had to re-read the report - it was not able to make a PPM claim due to not being in custody of the samples from the collection points to delivery.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> What?
> 
> Can you elaborate? What definition of the word "chip" are you working with here?


A circuit chip as two sometimes more different layers of dissimilar material fused together. same with the thermite chips.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Some of the red-gray chips of super-thermite found in the dust of the World Trade Center


Why is it so hard for you to admit you have no clue about what you're seeing in those pictures?

You're just believing what the captions say without really knowing what "nano-Thermite" would look like at all. 

If it had been used to melt steel beams it certainly wouldn't look like those unknown particles.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were already posted earlier in the thread


I've touched on this topic four or five times in my time here, if I can get one person to look at the information without any biases going into it then I have done a good thing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why is it so hard for you to admit you have no clue about what you're seeing in those pictures?
> 
> You're just believing what the captions say without really knowing what "nano-Thermite" would look like at all.
> 
> If it had been used to melt steel beams it certainly wouldn't look like those unknown particles.


In this reply you are speaking the truth. The chips that have been found have only been found because they did not get ignited, they are still active.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> if I can get one person to *look at the information without any biases* going into it then I have done a good thing.


It would be better if you would do that yourself.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> A circuit chip as two sometimes more different layers of dissimilar material fused together. same with the thermite chips.


Hold on.. so your whole thing is that at the site of a huge explosion involving an (aluminum) airplane and a (rusty steel-framed) building, aluminum and iron oxide were found fused together, and this somehow points to some sort of malicious deed other than that which is commonly accepted?

How can it be "nano thermite" if it's fused together into a big solid? Sorry, "military grade charged super nano thermite"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> The chips that have been found have only been found because they did not get ignited, they are still active.


There's no proof that's "nano-Thermite"
Your source was some individual trying to sell his books and videos.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> "One would expect that the U.S. government, the F.B.I., NIST, and other scientific institutions and technical universities around the United States would be racing to examine the evidence in order to find its origin. There are, after all, not that many companies or institutions that had the ability to manufacture nano-thermite in 2000-2001.


But photoshop and camera's were widely available.. and red paint chips not hard to find.. knuckle heads who believe anything you tell them are not hard to find either.



> While this material may have been made in the United States, it may have been made in Europe, for example in Germany where nano-technology is quite advanced, or elsewhere. Examining the elements and micro-structure of this material will give the best clues as to its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're linking to Christopher Bollyn now? ROFLMAO.. I need to find a bigger laughing duck...

Another religious wack job running around with his head up his ass... Conspiracy theorists all have the same things in common.. Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.

Oh.. and Bollyn wants your money too! TOO FUNNY...

I guess some folks are just special... real special...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Hold on.. so your whole thing is that at the site of a huge explosion involving an (aluminum) airplane and a (rusty steel-framed) building, aluminum and iron oxide were found fused together, and this somehow points to some sort of malicious deed other than that which is commonly accepted?
> 
> How can it be "nano thermite" if it's fused together into a big solid? Sorry, "military grade charged super nano thermite"?



You are mixing things up. I don't care if you took a ton of pure aluminium and a ton of iron oxide and smashed then together, head on, at a thousand miles an hour, that would not create one Nano-thermite chip if you did the same thing a million times.

The iron oxide and thermite compounds are fused together by applying opposite charges to the components when the compounds have been reduced to a size where you need a powerful microscope to see them.

Again, the mixed up portion of your understanding, it is only the presence of these rare items within the dust found at the WTC complex that brings up the possibility of anything "malicious". The Petition seeks to have their presence considered as a possible contributing factor.

All in all, I am not saying that this or that happened, what I am saying is that the report that was done has left too many strings dangling for me to be comfortable with their story. I only support the desire of the group that filed the petition to conduct a more in depth investigation. If they are right then we as a people deserve to have the facts, be they what they might be, given to us at full face value. If all of the items that they have compiled and investigated can be explained away with explanations that those filing the petition can accept, then, as I said before, I will stand down and speak of this no more.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Ending statement: I most certainly hope that they are wrong, that we were attacked by an outside group of people. If not then the only other possibility is that there were inside actors, our own people or our allies playing some sort of a part in the catastrophe(s) of that day.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

isaac338 said:


> Hold on.. so your whole thing is that at the site of a huge explosion involving an (aluminum) airplane and a (rusty steel-framed) building, aluminum and iron oxide were found fused together, and this somehow points to some sort of malicious deed other than that which is commonly accepted?
> 
> How can it be "nano thermite" if it's fused together into a big solid? Sorry, "military grade charged super nano thermite"?


I can answer that for you.. 
It was developed by the military at area 51 using Alien technology under the supervision of the Illuminati.. (I'm so proud of myself for knowing what the Illuminati is!!! ) LOL

Shine, at this point, you've just become entertainment... seriously...


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Shine said:


> Sorry, had to re-read the report - it was not able to make a PPM claim due to not being in custody of the samples from the collection points to delivery.


So, we don’t know the sample size?


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> You are mixing things up. I don't care if you took a ton of pure aluminium and a ton of iron oxide and smashed then together, head on, at a thousand miles an hour, that would not create one Nano-thermite chip if you did the same thing a million times.
> 
> The iron oxide and thermite compounds are fused together by applying opposite charges to the components when the compounds have been reduced to a size where you need a powerful microscope to see them.
> 
> Again, the mixed up portion of your understanding, it is only the presence of these rare items within the dust found at the WTC complex that brings up the possibility of anything "malicious". The Petition seeks to have their presence considered as a possible contributing factor.



Thermite is a mixture of powders, giving you a powder - this is what I don't understand. You keep talking about "chips" but that's inherently not the state of the thing you're discussing.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> But photoshop and camera's were widely available.. and red paint chips not hard to find.. knuckle heads who believe anything you tell them are not hard to find either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm still missing your in depth explanation regarding how a 47 floor building can collapse in upon it's self and ending up in it's own foot print. How a building of that size can end up in a 2 story pile of rubble in around 9 seconds due to a good bit of damage from debris and from fires on this and that floor. Please be specific regarding on how all of these unconnected events led to this building collapsing in what appears to be an engineered collapse. A collapse of this sort requires the synchronization with regards to when each and every supporting structure failed. If the supporting structures failed in an manner that was anything other than engineered then the odds of it falling in the fashion that it did are astronomical. 

Please explain how the roofline, corners and planes of the sides and the front surfaces appeared to maintain their cohesiveness throughout almost the entire observable collapse while the NIST recreation shows a substantial loss of integrity in these structures.

I has not seen your citation regarding which entity was able to prove that the Team of Scientists and those that signed their names as the "peers" that reviewed it are frauds.

I will understand if these requests are too much for you to comply with. I only ask because you said that you had provided the info about the scientific group and because you also said it wold be easy to prove how WTC 7 collapsed in a manner different than what the NIST recreation portrayed. While you are at it, please provide a suggestion regarding why the NIST recreation only runs up to the point where the videos show the beginning of the roof travelling as if the floors below it were causing absolutely no resistance.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Thermite is a mixture of powders, giving you a powder - this is what I don't understand. You keep talking about "chips" but that's inherently not the state of the thing you're discussing.


For the manufacture of nano scale components, all of the components would, of necessity, have to be smaller in size than talcum powder. The components are assembled together by charging the iron oxide with a positive charge and the aluminium with a negative charge. [my limited understanding] I do not know how they can regulate the individual items once created nor do I understand why it just does not turn into one giant clump rather than remaining a powder of combined components.

That's not to much to understand about me, if no one had designed and built a lawnmower before me, I would still be using s scythe. lol


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> For the manufacture of nano scale components, all of the components would, of necessity, have to be smaller in size than talcum powder. The components are assembled together by charging the iron oxide with a positive charge and the aluminium with a negative charge. [my limited understanding] I do not know how they can regulate the individual items once created nor do I understand why it just does not turn into one giant clump rather than remaining a powder of combined components.
> 
> That's not to much to understand about me, if no one had designed and built a lawnmower before me, I would still be using s scythe. lol



This is my issue with what you're asking, then - you want the taxpayer to spend countless more dollars investigating things that _*actual scientists and engineers *_with _*actual education*_ and _*actual understanding*_ have already told you are untrue or impossible, when you readily admit you don't really understand the misinformation you're parroting. I think this is somewhat irresponsible.

I think if you want to make accusations as intense as the ones most truthers repeat, you have a duty to FULLY understand the evidence, and be able to explain it to the layman.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> This is my issue with what you're asking, then - you want the taxpayer to spend countless more dollars investigating things that _*actual scientists *_with _*actual education*_ and _*actual understanding*_ have already told you are untrue or impossible, when you readily admit you don't really understand the misinformation you're parroting. I think this is somewhat irresponsible.
> 
> I think if you want to make accusations as intense as the ones most truthers repeat, you have a duty to FULLY understand the evidence, and be able to explain it to the layman.


I think that I am doing a fairly good job explaining what I understand. First point: There was no mention of the collapse of WTC 7 in the original Commission report. The explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was not provided until 2011. NIST could not provide essential specifics as to how one beam "walking" off of it's pylon could have caused a symmetrical collapse in such a fashion as you see in the following slow motion video. Second Point: Watch as the corner structures of both sides show no degradation in their structural integrity until, at ground level, they are destroyed completely without the portions above experiencing any resistance to their progress downward. 

Also, notice what appears to be pyroclastic flows from the collapse, these clouds that originated from the collapse turned out to be pulverized concrete. What would "pulverize" concrete?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> I can answer that for you..
> It was developed by the military at area 51 using Alien technology under the supervision of the Illuminati.. (I'm so proud of myself for knowing what the Illuminati is!!! ) LOL
> 
> Shine, at this point, you've just become entertainment... seriously...



...do you remember those little dog pictures that you harassed another poster with?

Can I borrow a few?


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> I think that I am doing a fairly good job explaining what I understand. First point: There was no mention of the collapse of WTC 7 in the original Commission report. The explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 was not provided until 2011. NIST could not provide essential specifics as to how one beam "walking" off of it's pylon could have caused a symmetrical collapse in such a fashion as you see in the following slow motion video. Second Point: Watch as the corner structures of both sides show no degradation in their structural integrity until, at ground level, they are destroyed completely without the portions above experiencing any resistance to their progress downward.
> 
> Also, notice what appears to be pyroclastic flows from the collapse, these clouds that originated from the collapse turned out to be pulverized concrete. What would "pulverize" concrete?


I'm not familiar enough with building demolition to say if that video is normal or abnormal. I'd hazard a guess that you aren't, either, and that countless people who _*are*_ have seen it and not raised the alarm.

I would assume that any load that's over the concrete's compressive strength could indeed pulverize it. For instance, a 5 ksi compressive stress on 4 ksi rated concrete would probably cause compressive failure. How much stress was that concrete under when the entire rest of the building was falling onto it? Remember that impact loading is significant in this situation.

Have you ever busted up concrete with a chisel or jackhammer? It makes a lot of dust, and that's only your walkway or garage floor, not a multi-story concrete building.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Also, notice what appears to be pyroclastic flows from the collapse, these clouds that originated from the collapse turned out to be pulverized concrete. *What would "pulverize" concrete?*


I was using my electric jackhammer a couple days ago to bust up some left over concrete in a 55 gallon drum that was used for a project.

When I was done, there was pulverized concrete everywhere within a 15 foot radius of me. From chunks the size of golf balls, to dust as fine as talcum powder. 

Was that a serious question???


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Murby said:


> From chunks the size of golf balls, to dust as fine as talcum powder.


You mean... "military grade super nano concrete"?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

isaac338 said:


> You mean... "military grade super nano concrete"?


Oh stop it! You're going to make me pee!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Military grade means they had to pay Davis Bacon wages to make it. Thats about the only difference in the grade is the cost it takes to make it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Murby said:


> Oh stop it! You're going to make me pee!


I hope your sitting in a leather or vinyl chair.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Enjoy. I repeat these things because I fear the power that politicians and corporations have granted themselves. If you [collectively] are willing to trust the powers that be, so be it. This particular day changed our world, it allowed our government to make laws that still stand today that say that you and/or I can be detained indefinitely with no recourse to challenge our accusers, no chance for our day in court. I hope these laws will be struck down but as it is now, our government can do as they will with anyone of us that causes a problem that they think needs to be fixed in a special manner. This day in history worked against all of us because we allowed the government to do what they say is necessary to protect us. We surrendered our privacy without a peep, we handed it to them and then thanked them for protecting us. 

We [collectively] have placed our trust in them, believing that those on "our team" ["D"s or "R"s] will forever protect us if only we surrender our freedom.

Before this chapter in the Tale of America is finished, I would like to, at the very least, question the things that I believe have been done against the American People.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Enjoy. I repeat these things because I fear the power that politicians and corporations have granted themselves. If you [collectively] are willing to trust the powers that be, so be it.


No, we don't trust corporations or politicians or the government.. which is why we assign independent committees to investigate these things.. and these independent committees depend on a long list of other independent sources to help them gather data and evidence. 
In fact, there are so many independent sources involved, to even think there's some conspiracy going on is just ridiculous.

You just don't want to accept the findings. Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Enjoy. I repeat these things because I fear the power that politicians and corporations have granted themselves. If you [collectively] are willing to trust the powers that be, so be it. This particular day changed our world, it allowed our government to make laws that still stand today that say that you and/or I can be detained indefinitely with no recourse to challenge our accusers, no chance for our day in court. I hope these laws will be struck down but as it is now, our government can do as they will with anyone of us that causes a problem that they think needs to be fixed in a special manner. This day in history worked against all of us because we allowed the government to do what they say is necessary to protect us. We surrendered our privacy without a peep, we handed it to them and then thanked them for protecting us.
> 
> We [collectively] have placed our trust in them, believing that those on "our team" ["D"s or "R"s] will forever protect us if only we surrender our freedom.
> 
> Before this chapter in the Tale of America is finished, I would like to, at the very least, question the things that I believe have been done against the American People.


I was only making light of the thread. I have given my hypothesis from personal experience and training. Also from trusted eyewitness accounts *there the day after it happened* complete with pictures and even several fire training classes from these first responders that were on scene. I know things that were never published online that I know of. 

Until now. 

Like the US customs rooms that had all the evidence from crimes that hadn't been tried yet. Millions (or more???) of dollars and gold/silver that was in custody. Why didnt these melt or burn? The robots that preceded the rescue dogs that tested the gases and radiation before the dogs entered a room. Some rooms were totally destroyed and some rooms still had *people* sitting in the chairs and not even a paper weight was knocked off the desk. The floor above and below was totally obliterated. How is this to be explained? 

These are the things the masses were not privy to because it was a kindness to the survivors and respectful of the dead.

Look this up if you will. Why would the rescue effort take over a week if the building was in such a demolished state? No fire chief I know would put his people in harms way on a pile of rubble for no results. 

_*Risk a lot to save a lot
Risk a little to save a little
Risk nothing to save nothing*_

This is the creed that every fire house goes by all across this country. FDNY is *one of the leaders* in the field (along with Phoenix) of incident command. There is no way they would have had rescue efforts for more than a week on a pile of rubble. 

Soooo, if they did risk* a lot* there was more than just rubble in that pile. There were still possible victims still alive. How can that be possible with just a pile of rubble? 

Look at everything. Not just a few clips of thermite chips and a video that _could be_ tampered with.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> No, we don't trust corporations or politicians or the government.. which is why we assign independent committees to investigate these things.. and these independent committees depend on a long list of other independent sources to help them gather data and evidence.
> In fact, there are so many independent sources involved, to even think there's some conspiracy going on is just ridiculous.
> 
> You just don't want to accept the findings. Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.


Tell me... what findings will I not accept? Who was assigned to the 9/11 Commission? Can you answer the question without googling? I'd make a bet... Did you read the 9/11 Commission report when it came out? Did you have any questions?

Tell me... if you read the commission report when it came out, did you have any concerns? If you were fixed to the tv that day, and you heard the many news persons calling out people that told of bombs going off, persons in the World Trade Center telling of the Marble Slates being blown off of the walls in the lobby, people in the sub basement telling of explosions that stripped the skin off of people, then I would ask, why were not these things in the report? It can be witnessed, even today, by the videos that were presented to make the claim that these things happened. The report did not touch upon these things... Why would you not seek to understand how these things might have happened?

Recorded the day of the incident:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah... no explosions in the buildings that day...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> I'm still missing your in depth explanation regarding how a 47 floor building can collapse in upon it's self and ending up *in it's own foot print.*


That didn't happen.
That's why there's no "explanation".



Shine said:


> I think that I am doing a fairly good job *explaining what I understand*.


You're parroting buzzwords from conspiracy sites.
That's not "explaining" anything.



Shine said:


> Yeah... no *explosions* in the buildings that day...


There were explosions caused by the impacts and subsequent fires.
There were fuel tanks in the basements.

You're pretending "explosions" means "intentional" and "bombs".


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Yeah... no explosions in the buildings that day...


There were mechanical rooms every seventh floor with boilers in them that are highly explosive under extreme heat.


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

I sorta found out walking up to the ticket counter at my local podunck airport. I had a connecting flight through Dulles to a business locale that I frequented. 

Wild eyes from the clerk. No more flights today. No explanation. 

I return to the truck, my lovely wife still there (she watches me come and go).

The truck radio gave us the initial reports. I had her take me back to the office, stupid in hindsight maybe, but I did get an hour or two in the smoke hole to collect. I called for her to come and take me home lunchish. 

Watching the video of both 1 and 2 was, and I sorta hate to say it, a beautiful thing in a sick way. The symmetry. 

I’ve rubbed elbows with artichokes, nut jobs, wire heads, etc (Engineers) and xcubes, nano and macro orbitals, Newtonians, etc (Scientists) and see a rather simple explanation. 

Some, looking for a body shot, hit center panel with a rather nice moletof cocktail. The resulting fire weakened the core beams/columns causing creep. Creep led to core failure. The core failure led to bending moment on the outside columns and subsequent buckle failure. Each floor, below impact, went through that same failure mode with increasing dynamic load. 

Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, pop, boom...............


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That didn't happen.
> That's why there's no "explanation".
> 
> There were explosions caused by the impacts and subsequent fires.
> ...


do you care to show your info regarding not falling into it's own footprint NIST even admitted that.

Please explain the how the marble was knocked off of the walls in the lobby, how the windows were blown out, in the lobby.

For that fact, explain how the firefighters did not understand what was happening even though they had putting out fires in buildings for quite some time. How come they used the words "bomb" and "explosion". How could they get it wrong?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> There were mechanical rooms every seventh floor with boilers in them that are highly explosive under extreme heat.


So, you don't believe what the fire fighters said in the videos? Do you think that they were mistaken in what they thought was happening?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> do you care to show your info regarding not falling into it's own footprint NIST even admitted that.


First you say "NIST lied" then you want to use them as a credible source.
I'm pretty sure they never said what you claimed.



> Please explain the how the marble was knocked off of the walls in the lobby, how the windows were blown out, in the lobby.


That was the result of the plane's impacts, falling debris and simple physics.



> For that fact, explain how the firefighters did not understand what was happening even though they had putting out fires in buildings for quite some time. How come they used the words "bomb" and "explosion". *How could they get it wrong?*


They are human.
Humans get lots of things wrong.



Shine said:


> So, you don't believe what the fire fighters said in the videos? Do you think that they were mistaken in what they thought was happening?


Yes, they were mistaken.

The fact they *said* "bomb" or "explosion" isn't proof of any conspiracy, nor is it proof there were "bombs".

But maybe if you *repeat* yourself one more time..........


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Yeah... no explosions in the buildings that day...


Explosions within the building would be expected.. first off, there was a lot of jet fuel.. Also, when molten aluminum (the aircraft) meets water, it splits the water and creates a lot of hydrogen gas. Remember, aluminum is highly reactive.

So someone saying "I heard an explosion" would not be something unexpected. Not sure if there were natural gas lines at those floors but that would do it too. 

So someone says "explostion" and instead of thinking about the half dozen things that could cause an explosion in such an event, you to straight to thermite conspiracy? LOL

They're HORSES, not zebras!


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Which reminds me of that time there was a rooster taken up roosting on the handrail of the front porch. Heck of a mess. So, one night I went out there, grabbed him up by the neck, and cut off his head with one of those heavy Chinese chopping knives. Well, I also ended up cutting off my thumb!!

I didn't know what to do, it was night time, I was drunk, and the power was shut off. So, I felt my way around, found my momma's sewing kit, and, on a moonless night, sewed my thumb back on, by feel alone. I was pretty proud of myself........until I woke up in the morning. I had sewed the rooster head on, instead of my thumb!! I almost went to the doctor, but I actually could sort of wiggle the head a little, sort of like a thumb. So, I decided to let it go for a day or two.

About 3 days later, I crawled out of a deep, alcohol induced stupor, to the horror of a rooster crowing at volume 11, right in the room with me!! I lit a candle(I went out and bought some, after the thumb surgery incident), and started looking around. It crowed again!! To my shock and dismay, it was my rooster head thumb, trumpeting like Gabriel's horn of death and dismemberment!!!(To be continued)


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

Clem said:


> Which reminds me of that time there was a rooster taken up roosting on the handrail of the front porch. Heck of a mess. So, one night I went out there, grabbed him up by the neck, and cut off his head with one of those heavy Chinese chopping knives. Well, I also ended up cutting off my thumb!!
> 
> I didn't know what to do, it was night time, I was drunk, and the power was shut off. So, I felt my way around, found my momma's sewing kit, and, on a moonless night, sewed my thumb back on, by feel alone. I was pretty proud of myself........until I woke up in the morning. I had sewed the rooster head on, instead of my thumb!! I almost went to the doctor, but I actually could sort of wiggle the head a little, sort of like a thumb. So, I decided to let it go for a day or two.
> 
> About 3 days later, I crawled out of a deep, alcohol induced stupor, to the horror of a rooster crowing at volume 11, right in the room with me!! I lit a candle(I went out and bought some, after the thumb surgery incident), and started looking around. It crowed again!! To my shock and dismay, it was my rooster head thumb, trumpeting like Gabriel's horn of death and dismemberment!!!(To be continued)



You need to come up with some new material.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

It's an anagram. Read it right, and it explains 9/11. You can't just say the truth about some things, the internet censors it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Aluminum Nano Particles:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=aluminum+nanoparticles&go=Search&qs=ds&form=QBIR

https://www.americanelements.com/aluminum-nanoparticles-7429-90-5



> Aluminum (Al) Nanoparticles, nanodots or nanopowder are *black spherical* high surface area metal particles.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Explosions within the building would be expected.. first off, there was a lot of jet fuel.. Also, when molten aluminum (the aircraft) meets water, it splits the water and creates a lot of hydrogen gas. Remember, aluminum is highly reactive.
> 
> So someone saying "I heard an explosion" would not be something unexpected. Not sure if there were natural gas lines at those floors but that would do it too.
> 
> ...


So, you will trust your opinion without having been there over NYFD personnel who not only know what types of explosions are common place during building fires but were actually there - fighting those fires, rescuing those people and telling us the explosions that they heard were bombs?

I got to admit, you must be really, really smart to know these things that you do.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> So, you don't believe what the fire fighters said in the videos? Do you think that they were mistaken in what they thought was happening?


No, they heard what they heard I am sure. If you have never been in something as simple as a house fire you would know that stuff explodes all the time in them. Bullets. water heaters, mason jars and even canned goods. It will scare the heck out of you because you dont know if its a chambered bullet or Uncle Bens mashed potatoes. A commercial building fire only amplifies the dangers and explosions. I have been in too many to count. 

The first video makes it seem like the bottom windows being shattered was ominous. It wasnt. A building that tall is designed to bend and sway a _certain_ amount. Anything over that certain amount causes stress on the floor it is all tied into. The bottom floor. The other floors are not stressed because they arent attached to the ground floor. Does this make sense? 

The other videos dont add up either. if you have ever seen a controlled demo with explosives did they go off one an hour or so? No they went off in rapid fire sequence. One explosion every hour or even every 60 seconds is not a controlled demo. Its more like every split second. They stated in the video they went off sporadically.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> So, you will trust your opinion without having been there over NYFD personnel who not only know what types of explosions are common place during building fires but were actually there - fighting those fires, rescuing those people and telling us the explosions that they heard were bombs?
> 
> I got to admit, you must be really, really smart to know these things that you do.


Didnt even come to mind until I read Murby's post but yes NG lines, super heated condensate and fire sprinkler lines, Ballasts in the light fixtures. Ballasts in the electrical rooms. Big booms on those. Ever hear a transformer blow up? Magnesium on the plane.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Its very hard to put out jet fuel. It even takes special gear if its done right.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Sure, there are lots of things in a building that wold blow up during a fire. Why was there a fire and explosion in the sub basement? 

And the most simplest question that I can come up with, did you watch the 4 videos that I posted? If you did, do you doubt the multiple fire fighters saying that bombs went off rather than them associating the explosions with normal events happening during building fires? Do you think that they did not know the differences?

I also had the fire training in the airforce - was trained to battle a mass parking ramp fire resulting from a JP4 spill or other type of similar event. Not sure what bearing that has upon this subject and I do not think that the jet fuel could have dumped down the elevator shafts to cause an explosion on another floor or in the basement, it was already ignited. 

Don't forget, JP4 is essentially kerosene.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> They stated in the video they went off sporadically.


So, there wasn't any of the firefighters that said the words: the floors started popping out, [then he used his hand to simulate rapid events going in a downwards manner] pop pop pop pop pop pop pop pop ->?

Remember, they know what goes on in building fires, they were there, we weren't.

You've got to understand, I am with them asking for a more complete investigation, with something this crucial happening being the catalyst for almost everything that evolved from that day, wouldn't you think that this is more than a reasonable request? 

What I post here are only the things that I find to be things that were not taken into account in that runaround they called the 9/11 Commission Report.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Sure, there are lots of things in a building that wold blow up during a fire. *Why was there a fire and explosion in the sub basement?*


Because a plane flew into the building.



Shine said:


> *I do not think* that the jet fuel could have dumped down the elevator shafts to cause an explosion on another floor or in the basement, it was already ignited.


I do not think you're correct.
Reality is lots of burning debris could have fallen down those shafts.



Shine said:


> So, you will trust your opinion *without having been there*


Were you there?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because a plane flew into the building.
> 
> I do not *think* you're correct.
> Reality is lots of burning debris *could* have fallen down those shafts.
> ...


In a fashion, you are supporting what I said. Something happened that day that never happened before. We do not have a good solid explanation with regards to what really happened that day. I've presented multiple instances where a good solid answer has yet to be provided, I want for the people that were there to have their experiences of that day to be considered. The Commission Report said that there were no "bombs" but there have been many utterances from people who should know what they are talking about to suggest that there might have been explosives involved. Why was it in the report that the possibility of explosives contributing to the collapses was not even considered? Sorry for the amount of bandwidth necessary to view those videos but the fire fighters said bombs went off, you would think that they would know the difference - Right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> In a fashion, you are supporting what I said.


Only if you totally *misunderstand* everything I've said.



Shine said:


> We do not have a good solid explanation with regards to what really happened that day.


Actually we do, but you refuse to accept the truth.



Shine said:


> I've presented multiple instances where a good solid answer has yet to be provided


No.
You've merely parroted the same tired lines of multiple conspiracy sites.



Shine said:


> Why was it in the report that the possibility of explosives contributing to the collapses was not even considered?


Because there was never any credible evidence of "explosives" being used.



Shine said:


> Sorry for the amount of bandwidth necessary to view those videos but the fire fighters said bombs went off, you would think that they would know the difference - *Right?*


Wrong.
That's been asked and answered more than once already.
You just keep repeating yourself.

Maybe the *next* time you repeat it will make all the difference in the answers.......................
or not.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe the *next* time you repeat it will make all the difference in the answers.......................
> or not.


...or not. I stand in support of a more intricate investigation. You appear to be totally comfortable accepting all of the missing parts as not important. I disagree.

Show me anywhere in the Commission's Report where the Fire Fighters input was explained. Show me anywhere where the testimony of Mr. Rodriguez, who reported a huge explosion in the sub basement was entered into the Commission's report.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> Why was it in the report that the possibility of explosives contributing to the collapses was not even considered?


Because hearsay isn't evidence and the actual evidence doesn't point to it, so considering the role of explosives would have been an enormous waste of time, money, and resources?

Do you not think it possible that on a day where several hundred of their colleagues were killed and extremely abnormal events had occurred, these firefighters might have misinterpreted things they would normally ignore? I can only imagine the toll a total lack of sleep and exposure to such violence would have on me, and I would hope in this case that my statements would not be used as evidence to attempt to prove the existence of the biggest conspiracy of all time.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> Because hearsay isn't evidence and the actual evidence doesn't point to it, so considering the role of explosives would have been an enormous waste of time, money, and resources?
> 
> Do you not think it possible that on a day where several hundred of their colleagues were killed and extremely abnormal events had occurred, these firefighters might have misinterpreted things they would normally ignore? I can only imagine the toll a total lack of sleep and exposure to such violence would have on me, and I would hope in this case that my statements would not be used as evidence to attempt to prove the existence of the biggest conspiracy of all time.


Sure... I'll accept the possibility that you could be correct, why is it that you will not give me the same benefit of the doubt?

Unless, your are absolutely certain, beyond that particle of doubt, that what we were told is, without any doubt, anything and everything that happened that day.


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> Sure... I'll accept the possibility that you could be correct, why is it that you will not give me the same benefit of the doubt?
> 
> Unless, your are absolutely certain, beyond that particle of doubt, that what we were told is, without any doubt, anything and everything that happened that day.


I guess it's because the possibility that I'm correct has the backing of countless educated professionals with genuine knowledge of the events and evidence, and the possibility that you're correct has the backing of internet crackpots armed with silly buzzwords and animated GIF evidence. Obviously I can never be 100% certain of anything but at a certain point I have to trust that the generally accepted truth is _*the truth, especially *_when the counter-evidence just seems so non-technical and essentially made up. 

I can't reconcile the thought that when you say that the published reports are misleading or an outright coverup, it basically says that the people who did the analysis and contributed to the reports are either in on the conspiracy, are incompetent, or are liars. How else could a coverup be possible? It's like saying the moon landings are fake - that's a slap in the face to all the engineers and pilots that actually made it happen.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> So, there wasn't any of the firefighters that said the words: the floors started popping out, [then he used his hand to simulate rapid events going in a downwards manner] pop pop pop pop pop pop pop pop ->?
> 
> Remember, they know what goes on in building fires, they were there, we weren't.
> 
> ...


I reply like I do because I have studied the structural drawings of those buildings. I have a habit of not buying into the force fed info I get firsthand. I have been a volunteer FF for 30 years. I know that sounds like I am not qualified because I am a volunteer. Volunteer FF is a buzzword for amateur for most people but I have had all the training a real FF has had to go through plus I have had the instructor training to a level that I can teach any FF* in the world* a class and he will get credit for it. Two of the worlds most formidable fire instruction training classes comes from Texas. We take it seriously here. I was also a volunteer EMT. I did this with my own nickel and spare time. It wasnt a flash in the pan. I am serious about it. 

I explained the structural make-up of these buildings. I have explained the why it happened like it did. I dont know how I can make it any easier. Am I 100% correct? Not likely but you arent either. I am willing to go down the rabbit hole with you and analyse but you dont seem willing to do the same. For you to be objective you have to be willing to see the other side.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I read this thread for several days before commenting, because I'm still a little uncertain, deep down, and am rather skeptical of anyone who IS comfortably certain and completely satisfied without a detailed explanation about everything.........and doubt that there won't be additions and alterations of all those "official" reports for more years to come.

I also remember hearing many times growing up, that 'there are no stupid questions'. So it was inevitable that some responses to questioning that awful day would be treated with varying degrees of disdain and/or contempt.
Sure, at some point we all lose patience with an inquisitor, but Skamp's post below should be taken to heart by those who are quick to judge or even ridicule Shine as he asks for answers he hasn't heard yet or still doubts the certainty of them.

IOW, the totality of the destruction that day is NOT simple, common, or expected. I seriously doubt any of the world's expert engineers and architects would have considered it remotely possible, much less easily predictable.
It was the epitome of the proverbial David vs. Goliath.
And we all know how many skeptics there are to THAT story............ 



Skamp said:


> Watching the video of both 1 and 2 was, and I sorta hate to say it, a beautiful thing in a sick way. The symmetry.
> 
> I’ve rubbed elbows with artichokes, nut jobs, wire heads, etc (Engineers) and xcubes, nano and macro orbitals, Newtonians, etc (Scientists) and see a rather simple explanation.
> 
> ...


It was indeed a "miracle shot, a one in a million hit".
I've read Bin Laden studied the structure for years to find the Achilles heel, and even with that knowledge, to have it carried out with precision by a dozen guys with a little training and some box cutters is, well.........impressive as it was devilish.



Now to the human error part that always comes into play in a devastating emergency. We all remember that day and we all knew people we talked to that thought the U.S.A. was in real trouble or might not be around much longer.
In the mean time, many brave people were risking their lives to save every one they could and didn't have the luxury of conducting nice little lab experiments



mreynolds said:


> There were mechanical rooms every seventh floor with boilers in them that are highly explosive under extreme heat.





mreynolds said:


> No, they heard what they heard I am sure. If you have never been in something as simple as a house fire you would know that stuff explodes all the time in them. Bullets. water heaters, mason jars and even canned goods. It will scare the heck out of you because you dont know if its a chambered bullet or Uncle Bens mashed potatoes. A commercial building fire only amplifies the dangers and explosions. I have been in too many to count.
> 
> The first video makes it seem like the bottom windows being shattered was ominous. It wasnt. A building that tall is designed to bend and sway a _certain_ amount. Anything over that certain amount causes stress on the floor it is all tied into. The bottom floor. The other floors are not stressed because they arent attached to the ground floor. Does this make sense?
> 
> The other videos dont add up either. if you have ever seen a controlled demo with explosives did they go off one an hour or so? No they went off in rapid fire sequence. One explosion every hour or even every 60 seconds is not a controlled demo. Its more like every split second. They stated in the video they went off sporadically.





mreynolds said:


> Didnt even come to mind until I read Murby's post but yes NG lines, super heated condensate and fire sprinkler lines, Ballasts in the light fixtures. Ballasts in the electrical rooms. Big booms on those. Ever hear a transformer blow up? Magnesium on the plane.


I've heard a few transformers blow. A lightening strike on one looks like a movie set pyrotechnic job in a Bruce Willis film, lol.
One small capacitor touched by a slip of a screwdriver sounds like a small cannon. Propane explosions will level a building and disintegrate a shop full of people. Fires can melt things you couldn't destroy with an Oklahoma defensive line.
But we don't see that every day and a few of us only see those things once or twice in a lifetime, provided we are still around to tell the tale about it.


But the strange things that happen in a flash as the result of chemistry and physics CAN be explained, like all the back up generators coming on line when the power went out. LOTS of stuff going on in structures the size of a small town.
But to act like it's as simple as diagnosing your wife's flat tire.............I think a few of y'all (not you Reynolds) should take a step back .
I think it's a little early to take over the throne vacated by the late Stephen Hawking.
Just sayin.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> I guess it's because the possibility that I'm correct has the backing of countless educated professionals with genuine knowledge of the events and evidence, and the possibility that you're correct has the backing of internet crackpots armed with silly buzzwords and animated GIF evidence. Obviously I can never be 100% certain of anything but at a certain point I have to trust that the generally accepted truth is _*the truth, especially *_when the counter-evidence just seems so non-technical and essentially made up.
> 
> I can't reconcile the thought that when you say that the published reports are misleading or an outright coverup, it basically says that the people who did the analysis and contributed to the reports are either in on the conspiracy, are incompetent, or are liars. How else could a coverup be possible? It's like saying the moon landings are fake - that's a slap in the face to all the engineers and pilots that actually made it happen.


Again... I accept that your position might be true. If your position operates within the realm of "truth" then it would seem that you would be agreeable with more investigation so as to support your position, Right?

The entire reason for this thread is to suggest that more investigation would be a good thing - do you agree?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I reply like I do because I have studied the structural drawings of those buildings. I have a habit of not buying into the force fed info I get firsthand. I have been a volunteer FF for 30 years. I know that sounds like I am not qualified because I am a volunteer. Volunteer FF is a buzzword for amateur for most people but I have had all the training a real FF has had to go through plus I have had the instructor training to a level that I can teach any FF* in the world* a class and he will get credit for it. Two of the worlds most formidable fire instruction training classes comes from Texas. We take it seriously here. I was also a volunteer EMT. I did this with my own nickel and spare time. It wasnt a flash in the pan. I am serious about it.


I explained the structural make-up of these buildings. I have explained the why it happened like it did. I dont know how I can make it any easier. Am I 100% correct? Not likely but you arent either. I am willing to go down the rabbit hole with you and analyse but you dont seem willing to do the same. For you to be objective you have to be willing to see the other side.
I accept your words along with your understandings. I have only provided things that do not seem to fit into the story that our government has told us. I too, have been in the fire, this fact does not allow me to say to anyone that you have to believe me, the only thing that I have the authority to ask is for others to consider things that did not appear in the report that told us what happened, with the authority that we should be comfortable with.

You seem to have an eye for structural integrity. When one of the towers started to collapse, the un=destroyed portion, the portion that was supposed to have enough weight to crush each and ever floor beneath it, each of the floors having strengths engineered into them to suggest that this type of collapse could never have happened we find that, for a portion ot time, it was falling down into itself, it leaned over the edge of the perimeter of the building, in all reasoning's and understandings - this particular portion had a path towards the ground which had no resistance to continue it's collapse, why, in the videos that filmed this event did this segment then return to the center of the tower to fall down in the path of the most resistance.

How come people do not want to investigate the surroundings of this event? The power of the individual people(s) was diminished by this event, you, I and all of the people that reside in America have had laws enacted which justifies and allows the government to do things [which they have been doing before this date illegally] where they say that these efforts are necessary. You, I and every American and every foreigner living in this country are now subject to the wishes and whims of our government. If we do something that places any representative in danger [#metoo, #nomore, #whatever] to where they might choose to use the power of these restrictions to prevent them from being held accountable, we... you, I , all of our countrymen and women have lost any protection that we might have had before 9/11. 

Go ahead, sit in your comfortable living room. Believe that these draconian restrictions will never diminish the rights of you and your family. Stand and watch as they are used against people within this country, agree with your family and with your friends that the laws written are good and just, accept our government operating against the people in such a fashion that the people that have caught the eye of the government or any individual within it will be dealt with as if they have no rights.

Stand now and ask our government to tell us everything about what happened this day or accept our diminished place within this country. ...within this world.

I say that I would like to have some substantiation regarding what happened - many here say "oh... it's OK nothing to see here."


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> I guess it's because the possibility that I'm correct has the backing of countless educated professionals with genuine knowledge of the events and evidence, and the possibility that you're correct has the backing of internet crackpots armed with silly buzzwords and animated GIF evidence. Obviously I can never be 100% certain of anything but at a certain point I have to trust that the generally accepted truth is _*the truth, especially *_when the counter-evidence just seems so non-technical and essentially made up.
> 
> I can't reconcile the thought that when you say that the published reports are misleading or an outright coverup, it basically says that the people who did the analysis and contributed to the reports are either in on the conspiracy, are incompetent, or are liars. How else could a coverup be possible? It's like saying the moon landings are fake - that's a slap in the face to all the engineers and pilots that actually made it happen.


I would say that if you feel that I am overstepping any boundary, go - read the entire Commission's Report. If you have considered any portion of what I have presented for you to go and verify or debunk, then compare what the report told us, seek if the Commission included information from the firefighters that worked to save people on that day - look if the report includes any mention about explosions in the sub basement - watch the videos of Mr. Rodriguez and what he had to say, ask yourself why WTC 7 was not included in the initial report, seek to find out which government departments were in that building, ask yourself a simple question: why did Donald Rumsfeld tell the world on Sept 10th that an audit of the military found that 2.3 trillion was unaccountable, ask yourself then where these records were kept.

You want to be outraged at what I offer you to think about... fine. You want to accept the "generally accepted truth"? 

Welcome to being a sheep. I hope your chains rest softly upon your shoulders.

Seek the truth for yourself or get in line and shutup.

I seek to have someone prove me wrong - you?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

There is a wealth of information out there, it takes a person time and effort to find it. If you do not want to think that we could do this to ourselves and that the people that either allowed it to happen or helped it, if you cannot understand the fact that it is a possibility and that there is too much information in the manner of videos and personal testimony in those videos that were taken that day, with many people, both nuanced and those with no real experiences providing what they saw, felt and experienced, if you want to blow off all of that information and just walk away - fine, but do not accuse me of anything, for you are willing to let someone else tell you what happened, I only ask for all the things that happened that day to be included in the investigation, to all be considered.

Whatever the outcome of that, I will accept, many have, in this thread, have tried to tell me that everything has been heard - everything has been considered - All of the words and videos that I have added in this thread prove that there is more to the story than you and I have been told.

But... of course, if you want to believe the people in the government....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)




----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


> If your position operates within the realm of "truth" then it would seem that you would be agreeable with more investigation so as to support your position, Right?
> 
> The entire reason for this thread is to suggest that more investigation would be a good thing - do you agree?


No - my assertion from several pages ago is that the matter has been put to rest to the satisfaction of the majority, and that further investigation serves only to piss time and money down the drain (and your country should be trying to piss less money away, not more, from what I understand). 

I do find humour in you resorting to the classic truther/conspiracy nut "sheep" insult, however. It could only have been better if you'd said "sheeple", but I'll take what I can get. I suppose you figure since you've done "independent research" (from conspiracy nut websites mostly), and generated "independent thought" (which appears to mostly be parroting talking points from the aforementioned conspiracy nutjobs), this means you're not also a "sheep"?


----------



## isaac338 (Jul 29, 2013)

Shine said:


>


Yep, that low-resolution grainy photoshop sure puts this whole issue to bed for me!


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> There is a wealth of information out there, it takes a person time and effort to find it. If you do not want to think that we could do this to ourselves and that the people that either allowed it to happen or helped it, if you cannot understand the fact that it is a possibility and that there is too much information in the manner of videos and personal testimony in those videos that were taken that day, with many people, both nuanced and those with no real experiences providing what they saw, felt and experienced, if you want to blow off all of that information and just walk away - fine, but do not accuse me of anything, for you are willing to let someone else tell you what happened, I only ask for all the things that happened that day to be included in the investigation, to all be considered.
> 
> *Whatever the outcome of that, I will accept,* many have, in this thread, have tried to tell me that everything has been heard - everything has been considered - All of the words and videos that I have added in this thread prove that there is more to the story than you and I have been told.
> 
> But... of course, if you want to believe the people in the government....


No, you won't accept it.. You may even believe you'll be willing to accept it, but you'll just rationalize some other conspiracy when the time comes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> why is it that you will not give me the same benefit of the doubt?


Because there is *no credible evidence* that supports anything you've said.
But maybe it you repeat yourself one more time............


----------



## Skamp (Apr 26, 2014)

I think there is an election/voting conspiracy. The count now shows 70% against, 40% for.

Lol

ETA: it mysteriously reset.

ETA: is there a half waning moon explanation?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

isaac338 said:


> No - my assertion from several pages ago is that the matter has been put to rest to the satisfaction of the majority, and that further investigation serves only to piss time and money down the drain (and your country should be trying to piss less money away, not more, from what I understand).
> 
> I do find humour in you resorting to the classic truther/conspiracy nut "sheep" insult, however. It could only have been better if you'd said "sheeple", but I'll take what I can get. I suppose you figure since you've done "independent research" (from conspiracy nut websites mostly), and generated "independent thought" (which appears to mostly be parroting talking points from the aforementioned conspiracy nutjobs), this means you're not also a "sheep"?


Funny. You use the classic "truther" label and then are offended by the use of the "sheep" label. 

Most of what I heard from numerous sources on that day, witnesses and individuals telling what they saw and felt were what caused me to develop an opinion that what happened was not what we were told happened.

But hey, you believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because there is *no credible evidence* that supports anything you've said.
> But maybe it you repeat yourself one more time............


Please correct your statement, there is no credible evidence that you will accept. There is a growing number of people who are also having trouble with the events of that day.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> No, you won't accept it.. You may even believe you'll be willing to accept it, but you'll just rationalize some other conspiracy when the time comes.


So smart... I'm surprised that you're not the president of this country, or of the WHO, or some global organization...

You know what? There is a phrase used to describe people who act like they know everything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Please correct your statement,


Nothing I stated is "incorrect".
You're the only one pushing the fantasy versions.



Shine said:


> There is a growing number of people who are also having trouble with the events of that day.


No, there really isn't.
It's the same silly crowd as always.

Since you've added *nothing new* in the last few years, I will leave you to your repetitious ramblings.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> So smart... I'm surprised that you're not the president of this country, or of the WHO, or some global organization...


Well, unlike our current president, at least I know that Puerto Rico is part of the USA...



> You know what? There is a phrase used to describe people who act like they know everything.


Ya.. Christians! LOL


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Well, unlike our current president, at least I know that Puerto Rico is part of the USA...
> 
> 
> Ya.. Christians! LOL


So, you're a Christian?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> So, you're a Christian?


Asking stupid questions might be one of the reasons you believe in the whole ridiculous conspiracy thing..... 

Knowing the right questions is every bit as important as knowing the right answers.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Murby said:


> Asking stupid questions might be one of the reasons you believe in the whole ridiculous conspiracy thing.....
> 
> Knowing the right questions is every bit as important as knowing the right answers.


Asking too few questions will allow others to take all that you have, likely with your permission. 

Your last sentence is spot on. I thank you for making that observation.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

Shine said:


> Asking too few questions will allow others to take all that you have, likely with your permission.
> 
> Your last sentence is spot on. I thank you for making that observation.


Shine,
I think maybe the government might be worried that you folks are on to them and gaining some traction with the whole thermite thing. 
Have you checked out Hawaii lately? They are obviously trying to dispose of it underground.. There's a lot of molten activity going on there.
Can you believe this? They have the nerve to call it an "eruption".. They have so much of it, the ground is cracking open.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/06/us/hawaii-kilauea-volcano/index.html


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Skamp said:


> I think there is an election/voting conspiracy. The count now shows 70% against, 40% for.
> 
> Lol
> 
> ...


Nope, a simpler explanation - math. 



> You may select up to 2 choices.


----------

