Nano-thermite in the WTC dust

This was interesting.



Mod edit to fix movie tags

~YMG

Thanks YMG, anyways one thing they discussed reminded me was "how do you get the explosives in the building?"

Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush

Specifically:


Then he worked for HCC insurance which apparently had some ties to the WTC as well (insurance wise)

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 15 2009, 06:44 PM

That is very interesting.

ah, fixed now, sorry...just being an ass. Will watch later though. Thanks.

This post has been edited by deadprez: Jun 15 2009, 06:34 PM

LOL, yeah someone was able to put the youtube movie in the body of the post not sure how you do that, just stuck a direct link in.

Are we going to be talking about chem trails next? This came out a couple of months ago. It looked like rubbish to me then and it still does. What possible reason was there for a controlled demolition of the WTC? Just look at the quantities involved. When was it emplaced? How come nobody noticed?

All very good questions, please read this *all the way* because it is also interesting.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889

Turner Construction was doing a "major renovation" right up to the 911 incident, they were working on the elevator shafts and other infrastructure.

Marvin Bush would have had access to the blueprints of the buildings, so would Tom Leppert.
Tom Leppert headed up Turner construction, a company that also had access to "nano thermite", Leppert is currently Mayor of Dallas.

So, I read it all the way. What exactly was interesting other than the fact that the WTC was missing necessary fireproofing in the elevator shafts? Answered none of my questions about what the purpose of destroying the towers was if it was done by your own government. Please enlighten me.

lol, f33dback should go talk to polarbear at MVGroup, they'd be best of friends.

What I don't understand about all the loose change style conspiracy theorising is the need to make a grande and elaborate pattern about a series of largely un-orchestrated and , if I might be so bold, stupid events.

It's like this: some cunts got on some planes.
They took control of the planes and flew them into some buildings.
Unsurprisingly the buildings, which had not been designed to withstand having planes being flown into them because it would be such an astoundingly stupid thing to do, fell down.

If we pause the action there: driving vehicles into buildings in order to cause explosions has a long history throughout the world and there have been quite a few things of this kind happen with land based vehicles. None of these events have been the center of a conspracy theory. Why? Because they happened way to hell and gone in Wogland. But only let something happen in America and...

Of course it can't be that a bunch of foreign people armed only with timetables, a modicum of plane steering ability, some knives and a special kind of stupidity which enables you to think that the net result of driving planes into buildings will be really great for everyone including yourself, could possibly have achieved such spectacular results. It must have been the government that did it.

Foghorn has a point, usually it's the simplest explanation that makes the most sense, that said I don't buy into the "official" explanation.
If this scientist was right, and there is explosive residue in the WTC dust what would you make of that?

One of the main things that people harp on about is that the towers collapsing was pretty unique, these steel structures just don't normally collapse when they've been burnt out.. two towers, one in Venezuela and the other in Madrid both burnt pretty uncontrollably for hours yet remained standing, WTC1 and 2 + 7 burnt for only a few and collapsed.

The MSM won't touch 9/11 from any angle for fear of being tarred with the "truther" brush, don't ever expect to know the definitive truth.

This is true, only 3 steel structure buildings have ever collapsed from fire (I read this some where can't recall) and of course the 3 were WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I don't think it's fear of the truther stigma, they don't seem interested in informing the public about anything that's going on.

Shoddy American workmanship. Must've been built on a Friday or a Monday. (For an explanation PM me)

Combine that with the first ever commercial plane to utterly vaporise at impact and you know something isn't quite right.

That flight 93 was odd as well, debris were found miles away including an engine.
Look at this photo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight93Crash.jpg

I guess I don't get how the engine made it miles away at the angle it was said to have crashed and the fact it hit a hill.


It's all very odd, and all the associations of the companies the did security, construction, etc to a bush family member or close bush associates doesn't make it any better.

There are a number of reasons I don't believe the official story, like the vaporization of the planes that hit the ground, the way the buildings fell, the fact that the US couldn't get fighters up to deal with the planes, and how in the fuck can some guys with a bit of flight experience fly those huge ass planes with pinpoint precision. I also look at US history and see that they have faked this kind of thing before in order to start their favorite pastime (war) (Gulf of Tonkin and some sketchy activities during pearl harbor). The main reason though is that I don't believe a word coming from the mouth of any american official or media provider. They constantly lie lie lie, all the time about everything, why anyone would believe the official story beyond me. I chalk it down to people being scared to be called a wacko or conspiracy theorist, both thing which were embedded into peoples minds by the media. Don't question anything.

Right let's go back to the beginning then and have a good question of events. First of all, by show of hands, how many of us believe that some planes flew into some buildings? *raises hand*

WTC 1 and 2 hit by planes.
Pentagon hit by plane though possibly not the plane they claim.
Flight 93 made a remarkably small impact crater considering its size and angle of descent.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ight93Crash.jpg

This site lays it out nicely.
http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html

It also seems there are no records of *positive* identification of *any* of the planes involved in 911
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16762

This guy is great, has spent hours and hours getting the records via free of information act request.
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/2074

Makes for interesting reading.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 16 2009, 10:52 PM

But isn't it equally lame to reflexively assume everything is a lie? Sometimes shit does just happen.

But once again, why? Why would Bush, an already wealthy man, risk being tried for war crimes if he got found out, just to get a little richer? The Bush administration weren't in power that long before 911 - there just wasn't time to organise such a massive conspiracy with operatives at all levels in such a short time, imho.

Meh, thermite can be used for bonding steel - it's just another smoking gun in my opinion.

Good question, what happened after 9/11 ?
War in Iraq
War in Afghanistan
patriot act 1
patriot act 2
dept of home land security
See a trend?

Why do you think it was only orchestrated *after* Bush got into office?

m15hun, Thermite is not used in the construction of buildings and certainly not when the WTC was built, it wouldn't have been used afterwards, and "nano thermite" didn't exist until recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding