No excuse for not testing for explosives

[Alferd_Packer]

Repeat from general conspiracy theories... Ignore....

Repeat from the past 9 years, ignore . . . .

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Sorry, I don't spend much time on this website.

That is nothing to apologize for.

 

[Sabrina]

AGAIN with the nanothermite!!!!

Dom, I want you to repeat after me please: THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE. SAME GOES FOR NANOTHERMITE; AND NANOTHERMITE DID NOT EXIST IN 2001 EXCEPT IN VERY SMALL TEST AMOUNTS, IF THAT, IN LABS.

Nanothermite is slightly more explosive than thermite, yes, but it is still an incendiary device, NOT an explosive. EPIC fail right there.

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

elbe,

"And I doubt bringing the towers down was their goal"

Why speculate that it was not their goal to bring down the towers? According to the mainstream beliefs the 93 bombings were an attempt to do exactly that and the same network of bad guys were involved. Why wouldn't that have been their goal? If it was just to hurt people why not fly the airplanes into a baseball stadium or other more crowdwd area?

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

Alferd_Packer,

"Those glasses went out of style 30 years ago."

Yet they still look fantastic.

 

[Loss Leader]

Those glasses went out of style 30 years ago.

They'll come back 'round after the NWO-choreographed nuclear holocaust scheduled for early June.

 

[Drudgewire]

Then you get guys like Ryan Macky, saying that there was more than enough energy without explosives for all three buildings to fall. (He usually directs his arguements to WTC 1 and 2 because WTC 7 is more difficult to explain away.) Assuming that NIST and a lot of the defenders of the mainstream story that have backgrounds in science are correct that the damage and fires would have been sufficient to cause total failure of all three buildings without explosives or incendiaries, WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?

ing magnets, how do they work?

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

Alferd_Packer,

"Can a mod move / merge this thread????"

Why? What do you care? What are you trying to run away from?

 

[elbe]

elbe,

"And I doubt bringing the towers down was their goal"

Why speculate that it was not their goal to bring down the towers? According to the mainstream beliefs the 93 bombings were an attempt to do exactly that and the same network of bad guys were involved. Why wouldn't that have been their goal? If it was just to hurt people why not fly the airplanes into a baseball stadium or other more crowdwd area?

Because they couldn't have been guaranteed that the planes would actually bring the towers down. They would have, though, still caused many deaths and the structural damage incurred would probably have required the towers to be torn down anyways.

They didn't just hate those towers, they wanted to send a message and they still would have (maybe with a little less impact) if the towers managed to stand.

 

[elbe]

Alferd_Packer,

"Can a mod move / merge this thread????"

Why? What do you care? What are you trying to run away from?

..because it's in the wrong place? I think we like to keep a tidy house.

 

[Drudgewire]

What are you trying to run away from?

Werebeavers. They're like werewolves, but they use your bones to make dams.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Alferd_Packer,

"Can a mod move / merge this thread????"

Why? What do you care? What are you trying to run away from?

Because the forum has been structured in such a way, and it is neat and tidy; and we like to keep the 9/11 stuff in its subforum because it has a way of drowning out general Conspiracy Theory threads.

 

[BigAl]

My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

...

So if we know this ["The 1993 bombing] why oh why does everyone say it is so inconceivable that whoever attacked America on 9/11 would or could have used explosive devices?

Since a huge truck bomb didn't bring a tower down, the Islamists tried something larger. D'oh.

In 1993 the bomb was heard for blocks around the tower and it was heard by occupants of the building on essentially all floors and yet it didn't begin to put the structure at risk of immediate collapse.

No such detonation was heard on 9/11.

There is no eyewitness to 9/11 that has joined the "Truth Movement" or says they agree with your points. None. Zip. Nada. You could prove me wrong by naming such an eyewitness.

No NY fireman ever described any explosion that is consistent with man-made demolition in timing, loudness or brisance. None. Zip. Nada. You could prove me wrong by naming such a fireman. Don't point to a video. Give me one name if you think I am wrong. Make you best case.

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise" and there were lots of loud noises heard on 9/11.

 

[Loss Leader]

First, please stop speculating on how much bomb material would be required. This does nothing to debunk the notion that explosives or incendiaries could have been used along with the airplanes.

Why do you say that? If it was eight ounces of explosives, it could have been carried by one guy in his front pocket. If it was 800 tons, then that would require some serious logistics.

If transporting a huge amount of explosives was impossible, then there's no sense testing to see whether there were a huge amount of explosives.

I have not inspected my ceiling for two sets of Yeti footprints today. Are you suggesting I should.

Okay, I examined my ceiling but found only one set of footprints. I assume that's when the Yeti was being carried by Jesus.

 

[Hokulele]

... Look at the damage that this one truck bomb did (that happened to be planted too far from any of the core collumns for whatever reason.) ...

More importantly, look at the type of damage the truck bomb did. Since the type of damage seen at the various WTC buildings is consistent with plane crash/fires/damage from debris/mechanical deformation, and not with explosives (note for the umpteenth time, explosions do not necessarily imply explosives), why look for them? It would be like going to the scene of a car crash and demanding that the police look for evidence of a moose, even though no moose were seen by anyone involved, nor were any obvious moose parts found at the scene, simply because moose have been associated with car crashes in the past.

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

DavidJames,

"Claim is supported by evidence from NIST, 9/11 report etc. The NIST report has not been challenged with analysis and supporting evidence using any professionally recognized mechinism."

So? It is still just an unsubstantiated claim hence a conspiracy theory. The spokesperson for the FBI and Mueller both admitted that they did not have a prosecutable case against UBL in regard to 9/11 so it is a conspiracy theory.

NIST is not a detective agency. The 9/11 commission was not even an investigation according to Ben Veniste who told Robert McIlvaine to remember 'this is not an investigation it is an eposition.' Besides the 9/11 Commission was wrought with lies. Even the chairman and co chairman of the commission have admitted to having been lied to so much that they often considered legal action.

 

[patchbunny]

Werebeavers. They're like werewolves, but they use your bones to make dams.

I'm never visiting Canada again.

 

[dommyboysinjapan]

Sabrina,

"THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE."

So? What's your point? Please show me where I said that thermite was an explosive. I am aware that it is not.

I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.

 

[Sabrina]

Sabrina,

"THERMITE IS AN INCENDIARY DEVICE, NOT AN EXPLOSIVE."

So? What's your point? Please show me where I said that thermite was an explosive. I am aware that it is not.

I wonder if you are aware that thermite can be mixed with explosive materials to make explosives that are considerably quieter than RDX or C4.

Care to cite that claim, Dommy?

 

[Oystein]

Ok let me see if I can turn this to dust before the UEFA Champions League semifinale (Barcelona vs. Inter Milan) kicks off in about 37 minutes...

My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

If you are a Scholar planning on a scholarly career, you might not want to commit your name to such a failed endeavour...

This message is for all those who realize that the story we are being given is wrought with lies and contrary evidence, yet somehow dismiss completely the theory of controlled demolition concerning WTC Towers 1,2, and 7.

The story given by the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice"? Ok, then I am in!

First, please stop speculating on how much bomb material would be required. This does nothing to debunk the notion that explosives or incendiaries could have been used along with the airplanes.

Why? If someone advances a theory about bombs, she must necessarily include such details, so her theory can reasonably be tested. From such assumptions follow testable conclusions such as the expect decibel level of such detonations.

In 1993, it is agreed by the mainstream community as well as all the alternative theorists that someone indeed managed to not only plant, but detonate a bomb within the WTC buildings. We know this.
...
So if we know this why oh why does everyone say it is so inconceivable that whoever attacked America on 9/11 would or could have used explosive devices? Look at the damage that this one truck bomb did (that happened to be planted too far from any of the core collumns for whatever reason.)

The argument seems to be: It has been done before, and I can imagine it, so it is likely? Hmmm...
Wait till you hear what else has happened before and what I can imagine that hasn't been tested for!

That bomb did not just "happen" to be too far from the core columns. There is a very good reason for this: It is too difficult and risky to seek unauthorized access to the core and plant tons of explosives there.

I'm tired of other people being so heavily critical of 9/11 Truth members and even professionals in relevant fields regarding the theory that explosives or incendiaries may have been used in addition to the aircrafts.

There really is no such theory that deserves the label.
We are tired about types like you rehashing the old half-cooked fantasies that have been debunked a long time ago already.

If you haven't researched the witness testimonies yet, not just William Rodriguez but many others, then I suggest you do so. Sure, many witnesses could be mistaking an explosion (by a bomb) for other loud collapsing noises but why assume it?

Yes, we have researched the witness testimonies, and found 0 (zero) that support the use of explosives or incendiaries to demolish the buildings.

Brent Blanchard (a writer for a construction company) is one of these guys that spreads his indignant emotions about the notion of explosives yet says the reason NIST didnt test for explosives was that there was no evidence found (like det. cord or blasting caps) Does anyone remember how much debris there was or how few people had access to it, or how totally all the office contents and cement was turned to dust. Is this guy actually serious about finding blasting caps???

Hmm blasting caps have a good chance of getting blasted out of the building because they are placed right where blasts happen. Some might therefore not end up under the rubble pile.
However, it is not true that everything was destroyed beyond recognition.

Lets get this story straight. Even though the mainstream believed that terrorists did in fact manage to plant bombs inside WTC 1 in 93, and even though there were multiple reports of explosions, NIST decided not to conduct any tests for explosive materials based on someone with a hardhat not finding a needle in a haystack. THEY accuse US of junk science?

Yes, and rightly so.
There really is no piece of evidence that points to the use of explosives, and no theory around it that can be tested.

Furthermore, it took NIST over 7 years to get a handle on why WTC 7 fell, FEMA said (in its initial investigation) that their own hypothesis had a low probability and admitted that it required more research.

So?

It very closely resembled a typical controlled demolition yet no-one thought to conduct a more comprehensive investigation into the theory of CD or look more closely for the presence of incendiary devices?

How many times have you been told already that a progressive collapse due to fire looks exactly like a CD?

Then you get guys like Ryan Macky, saying that there was more than enough energy without explosives for all three buildings to fall. (He usually directs his arguements to WTC 1 and 2 because WTC 7 is more difficult to explain away.) Assuming that NIST and a lot of the defenders of the mainstream story that have backgrounds in science are correct that the damage and fires would have been sufficient to cause total failure of all three buildings without explosives or incendiaries, WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?

No, actually, WTC7 is easier to explain as it collapsed in the fashion favoured by demolishers: From the bottom.
And what it shows is: Our theory needs not unsubstantiated assumptions (entities) to be viable, thereby pleasing Occam.

I guess the implicit point is that the terrorists (being the rational human beings they were) and considering they were all structural engineers that knew the airplanes would hit successfully would never have added some extra bombs or ahem a truck bomb to ensure that the job was done. I guess it is ok and scientific to just speculate that these same people who allegedly did the bombing in 93 would act 100% scientifically and rationally.

We do not know for sure if they anticipated the collapse of the towers, and if they did, if they had a scientific basis for this expectation or just imagination.
In any case: Crashing 4 planes into famous buildings is a pretty cool attack already, everything beyond that would be mere icing.
Actually, doing it with planes only is much cooler than aiding it along with bombs, IMO.

I guess it is scientific just to assume it amid all the witness testimonies and a huge public outcry to Mayor Guilliani to "Stop throwing away the evidence."

What is scientific about this woo?

One final thought here.

Stop calling the theory of demolition or incendiary devices a conspiracy theory!

Well, ok. It's not a theory, really.

It is a scientific theory about 3 high rise buildings that had a complete failure on 9/11 due to the actions of some kind of terrrorist organization(s). If explosives or incendiaries were used they could have been planted by anyone. 3 hijacked aircrafts in the air for a long time yet not being intercepted, hitting their targets at speeds that many experienced commercial pilots say would take the airplane apart sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Yet we are to believe that this not only happened but the criminals were unassisted by any other organization except Al Qaeda.

That's 4 airplanes.
What your commercial pilots supposedly say there is plain wrong.
The reasons why NORAD failed to intercept and shoot down the planes before they hit their targets are well analysed: They did not have the time, the equipment and the authority to do it. Really quite simple. Basically, this is an argument from incredulity. Or from Hollywood (you know, US armed forces being oh so great, etc.)

There has been a precedent set for Islamic radicals using bombs yet this sounds too crazy to even do some testing after the greatest attack on American soil in history?

Right. Because there really is no initial reason to think that bombs were used.

Wrap up
WTC was demolished with thermite so the American government must have been involved=conspiracy theory.

You know that this idea is whacko.

WTC failed as a result of structural damage and fire because of Al Qaeda alone=conspiracy theory.
(in both cases two or more people are implicated to have conspired to commit the crime)

Correct.

Based on dust samples that had unreacted nanothermite found at the site

No. The Jones paper has been shown to be so deficient in every respect. Fact is, no nanothermite was found.
Besides, there is no theory that would explain how nanothermite would be used to bring down a building.

and witness testimonies

None that point to an intentional demolition.

as well as the historical precedent of a bomb being used in 93, let's at least do more testing of the remaining steel pieces to discern if there were also any explosives or incendiary devices present=/=conspiracy theory.

Precedent is only fuel for imagination.

There is no theory being suggested as to who commited the crime.

Bingo. And that is the very reason why no tests ought to be conducted: Without a theory, test results have no meaning.
It's about high time the "Truth" movement comes up with a theory. Really. After 8 years, there is none. We are all dying to learn one, we really are!

Doing rigorous testing for all possibilities of collapse mechanisms after an extremely unprecedented event is the scientific approach.

You need to establish the probability of the scenarios (theory) you want to have tested. To do this, you first need a theory, and show that the theory is capable of explaining the known observations. Please present us with such a theory!

Speculation that the terrorists just had to be monogymous to their airplane plan even amid a huge amount of mounting counter evidence is pure junk science and any so-called "debunker" or "skeptic" that can't understand this basic principle is either biassed or has not taken a serious look at the evidence on both sides.

It is the other way round: There is no such mounting evidence: Every claim by the "Scholars" has been refuted, and the "Scholars" have toi this day not even advanced a comprehensive theory. They fail, and fail miserably.



ETA: Just in time for kickoff