Gage's next debate

[000063]

When you get shown a video of molten aluminium glowing orange-yellow, and you can still insist that molten aluminium always looks silvery, it's a bit difficult to know a better way to react than pointing and laughing. You're deluded, and everybody can see it but you.

Dave

He insists Al looks silver "in daylight". Which is weird, because that's a brightly, if artificially, lit-lab, and it looks orange to me. maybe there's something in flourescent lights that makes molten alminiu-



Guess not.

 

[Christopher7]

This video does not say anything about cars burning out in hours.

"Car after car after car, completely obliterated and burned straight down to the steel." These cars were not put out, they burned out. This video was made at about 4 p.m., 6 hours after the collapse of the towers.

TFC
You are still comparing tire plies and brush fires to cars. You are not a serious person.

000063
An amateur video cannot be relied on for scientific analysis of color or brightness. Obviously, these guys are not too bright themselves. The yellow is the reflection off the vessel. This happens when there is only a few inches of fall.

Dave Rogers
NIST acknowledges that aluminum normally is silvery in daylight.
The "pure" in the NIST statement refers to NIST claiming that organic materials may have mixed with molten aluminum, but this is baseless speculation.

Molten aluminum is silvery in daylight and you are blowing smoke.

 

[triforcharity]

"Car after car after car, completely obliterated and burned straight down to the steel." These cars were not put out, they burned out. This video was made at about 4 p.m., 6 hours after the collapse of the towers.

And you know this HOW? How do you know they burned out instead of me and my friends putting them out?

Do you understand what that means?

TFC
You are still comparing tire plies and brush fires to cars. You are not a serious person.

I've got my serious face on right now.

Do you not understand that MAGNESIUM can burn for quite a while? Do you also not understand that RUBBER can burn for quite some time also?

Please cite a source of this knowledge that firefighters worldwide seem to have missed. It would be a ground-breaking discovery.

 

[Christopher7]

C7, the Van Romero episode is being discussed on a new thread.

Thank you for the link.

Part of his original statement:
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse"

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

He is an expert on the subject and his initial impression was enough to warrant investigating the possibility of CD. i.e. test for explosives.

In the interview he reiterated that the Trade Towers looked like a controlled demolitions and he wanted to put out the idea that there could be a number of scenarios that could take place. He said "From my perspective it looked like that controlled collapse was internal explosives and so that's one of the possibilities that could happen".

But the only scenario NIST considered was fire.

Van Romero said that "more information came out about what happened at the event in the week before the second article and he had more data to formulate a decision." . . . "We learned that there were exposed beams [insulation blown off], hot fire, . . . . and that hot fire cause the beams to collapse."

There was no "data" at that point, there was a lot of speculation.

Then it gets really bizarre. He actually says that the towers were designed to fail that way because they didn't want the building to fall over into another building. "You want it to collapse inside itself. So the building actually operated exactly as it was designed." Romero said.

I have never heard anything like that in my life and anyone who believes that is terminally stupid.

Buildings are designed NOT to fall at all.

Thank you so much for posting this. It exemplifies just how much absurdity some people will say and accept in defense of the Official Collapse Theory.

 

[chrismohr]

Credits?

Hi gang,
Anyone willing to be credited for their help in my preparation of this video? I'd need a real name (plus your "name") and your expertise (metallurgist, chemist, engineer, etc.)

I need this soon; I record on Monday.

Thanks
Chris

PS This weekend I polishing up what I have. Building 7 first drafts will be late next week.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Christopher7, in response to the following statement, which is a pure figment of your imagination in order to deny the evidence of your own eyes:

The yellow is the reflection off the vessel. This happens when there is only a few inches of fall.

the only response is:

you are blowing smoke.

As usual, if you don't like the evidence, you make up some different evidence.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...
Also nice work Oystein. You posted some great information I had not seen.

Thanks. All it took was a little googlevestigating: Search for "hematite particles nm", "kaolinite particles nm", or some such combinations, and don't give up after 5 minutes.

 

[Oystein]

...
Onstein
http://72.22.18.215/s_mrs/bin.asp?CID=2523&DID=57587&DOC=FILE.PDF
Very interesting, but irrelevant. You are playing games and just argue to win.
The paint you referenced is used in pottery and paintings, not buildings, because it is no doubt very expensive. The other reference is also irrelevant to the point at hand - the red/gray chips.

You are not a serious people, just adolescents making blatantly absurd statements or looking for something to rail about. All the childish put downs tell us what you are really about.

You are missing the point entirely, and I find it hard to believe that this was a slip rather than a deliberate choice, for you can't be that dumb:

The point is that nano-sized hematite is NOT high-tech stuff, but has been used and produced by people centuries ago. No matter what they used it for.
If you did some googling, you'd find that particle size affects the hue of hematite pigments, so it is absolutely conceivable that a paint producer would use pigments of a certain (low-tech) nano-size in their products.


Also, you conveniently overlooked all of this:

...
Fine clays such as kaolinite likewise have had uses since prehistoric times, for example "in paint to ... modify gloss levels".
Here is an image of "authigenic" (that means: it formed in situ, where it was found in nature) kaolinite:
http://www.webmineral.com/specimens/picshow.php?id=1283&target=Kaolinite
Compare this to the stacks of plate-like crystals in the top left corner of Fig. 8c in the Harrit paper: Same appearance, size is same order of magnitude. This stuff forms naturally in nature. It is NOT high tech stuff.


But what does high tech nano-thermite REALLY look like? Let's download the Tillotson paper that Harrit and the bunch refer to...
http://www.doeal.gov/FOIADOCS/DOC00329.pdf
...and look at Fig. 1a, and how Tillotson describes what he sees there (page 341):

What is missing in Harrit's "nanothermitic material"? You guessed right if you said "aluminium spheres". Or show me where they are!

ETA:
Here is a commercial Kaoline formulation:
"Supreme" by Imeris (Data sheet)

Its particle size ranges from 10 micrometers down to 300 nanometers.
"They don't make paint out of extremely expensive nano particles"? Ha! That is exactly what this product "Supreme" is all about: "Key Applications: Water based Decorative Paints, Protective & OEM Coatings, Printing Ink, Adhesives & Sealants, Building/Construction, Chemicals"

Main points to address here:
- No Aluminium particles found in Harrit samples - these would be spheres, not platelets and stacks
- The Al-rich platelet stacks are Kaolinite in a particle size that is both found in nature, and offered in bulk amounts commercially for a wide range of applications, with paint being among the more important.

Please address these FACTS!

 

[Christopher7]

So, Chris 7, you have a shot at immortality. In my second draft of my Gage rebuttal, I paraphrase Ryan Mackey's assertion that nanothermites are not very explosive, then I cite your reference:

In rebutting Ryan Mackey, a 911 Truth advocate showed me a paper titled, “Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials,” which says,

"We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry... proven successful in preparing metal nanocomposites such as aluminum.”

This is evidence that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

That is not THE evidence, it's just one document. I posted a quote from another document by the same people:

monomolecular materials can have much greater power than composite energetic materials. A major limitation with these materials is the total energy density achievable. Therefore, it is desirable to combine the excellent thermodynamics of composite energetic materials with the rapid kinetics of the monomolecular energetic materials. One possible way to do this is to mix the components of composite energetic materials on a size scale which will limit the effects of mass transport on the reactants, thus providing kinetics similar to those obtained in monomolecular energetic materials.

We have previously prepared pyrotechnic and explosive composites based on thermite reactions whose fuel and oxidizer constituents are intimately mixed on the nanometer-sized scale
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

and
Military reloads with nanotech
Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

I can’t resolve the question of whether nanothermites have can be high explosives.

The articles I posted say that they have created explosives based on thermite reactions and there are things they don't reveal.

But if an experiment could prove the presence of nanothermites in the World Trade Center dust, then that argument would have no weight anyway, because there simply would be no benign reason for the appearance of tons of nanothermites in the World Trade Center.

That does not make any sense. There is no benign reason for nano-thermite to be in the dust so it has a great deal of weight.

So looking at the thermitic experiment itself, here are reasons both for and against accepting the argument for nanothermites...

It's not a question of arguments, it's a question of evidence.

It seems that Chris 7 has been doing a pretty good job of estimating the 4 million gallons of water with citations. C7 I'm not sure what the point is with all this.

It's a different subject.

Oh, and your claim that no one would confess to being part of a mass murder... I'm sorry, I believe that at least some military people, intelligence officers, first responders and firefighters who have the courage to put their lives on the line for their country and their community would not be quiet if they knew for a fact this had happened. Call me asinine or stupid or ignorant, but I have enough faith in the better side of human nature to be confident that someone would have the guts to stand up and speak.

If you are basing your denial on your faith in human nature then you are a fool.

We must look at the evidence objectively and let the chips fall where they may. Only when you get over you faith based conclusions and accept the reality that "it could happen here" will you be able to deal with the evidence objectively.

 

[Christopher7]

Oystein

Iron oxide nano particles are a bit pricy as I had predicted.
[FONT=&quot]Iron (II, III) Oxide (Fe3O4) Nano Powder[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]99.9%, 20-50 nm (TEM & BET) in average size, spinel crystal structure, black magnetic powder[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 kg $ 198.00[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 kg $ 165.00/kg[/FONT]
http://www.advancedmaterials.us/26FO23-08N1.htm



Thermite paper pg 11
"The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK."

Then there's those iron spheres

 

[Jono]

And now for a devil's advocate response to Dave: It seems that Chris 7 has been doing a pretty good job of estimating the 4 million gallons of water with citations. Tri has said that the FDNY firefighters knew from thermal images where the hot spots were and tried to concentrate their water there. He also said that with fires deep under the rubble, they couldn't focus the water right onto the fires. Even so, they could pour water into the general vicinity for hours and days. C7 I'm not sure what the point is with all this... if you add up all the floors on fire in all three buildings, it came to some 40-50 acres of floor space (my rough guess). Buried deep down where firefighters couldn't get to it. Seems like a whole lot of fire to put out, standard or thermitic either way.

I've heard about the estimate of 4 million galons of water, years ago. In any case, we have had fires going on for decades under the soil, burning, it is well insulated (not perfectly or total, since that is generally only possible under extreme extraordinary conditions, as opposed to a debris pile). We have severely oxygen-starved coal mine fires also producing very high temperature that goes on and on, seemingly disappearing yet when stoaked turns up the temp again. Here, we have a pile with a composition of concrete and steel (allthough the latter would only be about 10% of the pile or so) dust of the concrete and a variety of quantities of hydrocarbon yielding materials and other combustibles.

Concerning the molten metal angle on this bit, the hotspots often hinted to would have to be so perfectly insulated that they would somehow keep steel liquid for weeks and weeks, which is just not possible. the debris piles while insulated here and there in-depth weren't completely insulated, additionally the heat produced from the fuel-soaked materials and combustibles would fluctate depending on compound burnings and transfers, added the stoaking effect as the debris was progessively cleared for roads and transport routes up and round the GZ hot-spots.

"As in a stubborn coal mine fire, the combustion taking place deep below the surface is in many places not a fire at all. Instead, oxygen is charring the surfaces of buried fuels in a slow burn more akin to what is seen in the glowing coals of a raked-over campfire. But the scale of the trade center burning is vast, with thousands of plastic computers, acres of flammable carpet, tons of office furniture and steel and reservoirs of hydraulic oil and other fuels piled upon one another.

Steel beams pulled from the debris at times are so hot they are cherry red. Benzene, propylene, styrene and other chemicals generated by the combustion of computers, office products and fuels drift through the air. And at times, plumes of this smoke are still carried across Lower Manhattan, into City Hall, down to Wall Street, and up through TriBeCa, a relentless reminder of that morning on Sept. 11.

"You keep hitting it again and again with water," Mr. Maldonado said, his respirator momentarily pulled from his face, as he stood in the scorched landscape that once was the World Trade Center plaza. "But the fire won't give up. It is just a constant fight."

-- With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire

We know little about the amount of water we can attribute to have turned into steam, or the amounts drainage could account for. And we can't calculate the total depth of water based on the WTC tower footprints and then go on to calculate the total debris-volume based on the Towers footprints. The area as well as where the water went covered a notably larger area than that.

 

[Jono]

Oystein

Iron oxide nano particles are a bit pricy as I had predicted.
[FONT=&quot]Iron (II, III) Oxide (Fe3O4) Nano Powder[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]99.9%, 20-50 nm (TEM & BET) in average size, spinel crystal structure, black magnetic powder[/FONT]

There's a reaction between steam and iron which can produce hydrogen and black iron oxide (Fe304), and it's something that's been done for at least a 100 years.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein

Iron oxide nano particles are a bit pricy as I had predicted.
[FONT=&quot]Iron (II, III) Oxide (Fe3O4) Nano Powder[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]99.9%, 20-50 nm (TEM & BET) in average size, spinel crystal structure, black magnetic powder[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1 kg $ 198.00[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 kg $ 165.00/kg[/FONT]
http://www.advancedmaterials.us/26FO23-08N1.htm

Fe3O4 <> Fe2O3
(Didn't look at the link to see what else is wrong with your investigoogling)

Thermite paper pg 11
"The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK."

Then there's those iron spheres

[qimg]http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3113/fig20.jpg[/qimg]

That's iron spheres after burning. (ETA: iron-rich spheres, to be precise)
I was asking for aluminium spheres before burning.
Read more carefully, C7. You haven't refuted a single thing yet. Try harder!

(Besides, as a comparison of Fig. 7 and 14 shows, the MEK soaked chip is a different material from the other 4 chips. As Sunstealer has shown some weeks ago, it resembles WTC primer paint very much, whereas he other four samples do not)

 

[NoahFence]

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse"

Can't you see how absolutely INSANE that premise is?

Explosives CANNOT survive that. Period, end of friggin discussion. Couple it with the building being rocked and everything and everyone inside being thrown around like confetti. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to have been a controlled demolition. So what if it looked like it. I could go on for hours showing you examples of things that look like something else.

 

[chrismohr]

Chris7 I guess I need to clarify, because you misunderstood. I'm agreeing with you and you are still arguing with me.

Quote:
C: I can’t resolve the question of whether nanothermites can be high explosives.
C7: The articles I posted say that they have created explosives based on thermite reactions and there are things they don't reveal.

Yes, and Ryan Mackey claims almost the opposite and gives reasons that also sound good to me. My question, can nanothermite be a high explosive, is unresolved in my mind, so I quote both sides. Your quote is compelling enough to be included in my narrative, and it carries weight.

Quote:
But if an experiment could prove the presence of nanothermites in the World Trade Center dust, then that argument would have no weight anyway, because there simply would be no benign reason for the appearance of tons of nanothermites in the World Trade Center.
C7 That does not make any sense. There is no benign reason for nano-thermite to be in the dust so it has a great deal of weight.

OK, let me try to rephrase because you didn't understand what I said and I can see why: I wasn't clear. Ryan stated that nanothermites would be a poor choice of material for a controlled demolition. You quoted articles that show that nanotechnologies can be used for explosives. But if nanothermites are in fact found in the dust, then Ryan's argument becomes moot, because the nanos are THERE, and there would be no benign reason (such as its well-known use to preserve wool in suits ) for lots of nanos to be there... it could ONLY be there for evil reasons.

Quote:
So looking at the thermitic experiment itself, here are reasons both for and against accepting the argument for nanothermites...
It's not a question of arguments, it's a question of evidence.

All we do on this thread is argue, are you kidding?

As for my faith-based belief in people's goodness, I do not deny that any country can do terrible things. We know this from Nazi Germany and countless other examples. But in Nazi Germany, anyone who talked was shot. Here, you get fired, and then you take your case to court, to the media, to Congressional hearings. The argument that someone would do the right thing if hundreds of people were involved in a conspiracy of this magnitude is a valid one, and can be rebutted only by a faith-based belief in the complete evil of every single individual involved. It is to deny that there is even a shred of willingness anywhere in our species to sacrifice for something greater than ourselves. To say that not even one person with 911 insider information out of hundreds would do one brave deed is a statistical impossibility held onto by someone who has an incredibly dark view of his own species.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris7 I guess I need to clarify, because you misunderstood. I'm agreeing with you and you are still arguing with me.

Quote:
C: I can’t resolve the question of whether nanothermites can be high explosives.
C7: The articles I posted say that they have created explosives based on thermite reactions and there are things they don't reveal.

Yes, and Ryan Mackey claims almost the opposite and gives reasons that also sound good to me. My question, can nanothermite be a high explosive, is unresolved in my mind, so I quote both sides. Your quote is compelling enough to be included in my narrative, and it carries weight.

I don't know. However, nano-thermite does not need to be a high explosive because the cutting is done with 4500 degree molten iron.

Quote:
But if an experiment could prove the presence of nanothermites in the World Trade Center dust, then that argument would have no weight anyway, because there simply would be no benign reason for the appearance of tons of nanothermites in the World Trade Center.
C7 That does not make any sense. There is no benign reason for nano-thermite to be in the dust so it has a great deal of weight.

OK, let me try to rephrase because you didn't understand what I said and I can see why: I wasn't clear. Ryan stated that nanothermites would be a poor choice of material for a controlled demolition.

In his opinion, which means nothing in an investigation.

You quoted articles that show that nanotechnologies can be used for explosives. But if nanothermites are in fact found in the dust, then Ryan's argument becomes moot, because the nanos are THERE, and there would be no benign reason (such as its well-known use to preserve wool in suits ) for lots of nanos to be there... it could ONLY be there for evil reasons.

The thermite paper is evidence of nano-thermite [not just nanos] being present in the dust, objections notwithstanding. A real investigation into the events of 9/11 would include other independent qualified groups confirming or disproving the findings. NIST ignored the evidence of explosives i.e. numerous witness accounts and experts like Romero saying it looked like a CD.

These firefighters experienced huge explosions in the lobby. This is evidence of explosives and cannot be assumed to be benign. To ignore this and all the other video clips of people who said they heard and felt explosions is unconscionable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Quote:
So looking at the thermitic experiment itself, here are reasons both for and against accepting the argument for nanothermites...
It's not a question of arguments, it's a question of evidence.

All we do on this thread is argue, are you kidding?

And therein lies the rub. Evidence is presented but the denior chior thinks up reasons not to accept it or just refuses to accept it.
I have clearly delineated that the fire on floor 12 had gone out and therefore the NIST hypothesis is impossible and the fire simulation is a fraud but you will not accept that.

As for my faith-based belief in people's goodness, I do not deny that any country can do terrible things. We know this from Nazi Germany and countless other examples. But in Nazi Germany, anyone who talked was shot.

How do you know that has not happened? The media is owned and controlled by a few corporations and anyone who talks is "Dixie Chicked". i.e. called a "nut job", ignored and often fired. Van Jones lost his job for exercising his constitutional right to sign a petition.
The absence of a confession by someone who was directly involved is by no means evidence that there was no inside job.

To say that not even one person with 911 insider information out of hundreds would do one brave deed is a statistical impossibility

Many people with insider information have come forward but it is not reported in the media. Google "whistle blowers".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

We know little about the amount of water we can attribute to have turned into steam, or the amounts drainage could account for. And we can't calculate the total depth of water based on the WTC tower footprints and then go on to calculate the total debris-volume based on the Towers footprints. The area as well as where the water went covered a notably larger area than that.

Beyond that, we know there was enough drainage to warrant EPA studies of both the drinking water in Manhattan as well as a study of the drainage's effect on the Hudson river. As best as I can recall from those studies, the amount of drainage was not quantified (again, it was aimed towards studying the pollution from the runoff), and thankfully the environmental effects, while measurable, did not reach dangerous levels. But that there was enough to be noticed is established.

 

[000063]

And we come to the center of the shrubbery maze.

The thermite paper is evidence of nano-thermite [not just nanos] being present in the dust, objections notwithstanding.

No. We cannot ignore objections just because you say so. IIRC, the paper the nano-thermite paper was published in was later discovered to take a fake paper full of nonsense by people who didn't exist from an institution that doesn't exist, as soon as the payment was made. This calls its credibility into serious question.

These firefighters experienced huge explosions in the lobby. This is evidence of explosives

It's evidence of explosions. I can stick a bottle of water in the microwave and it'll explode. Does that mean water is an explosive?

and cannot be assumed to be benign.

Yet you seem perfectly willing to assume it's malicious.

To ignore this and all the other video clips of people who said they heard and felt explosions is unconscionable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Explosions != explosives.

A real investigation

Run by Hamish True-Scotsman, I assume

into the events of 9/11 would include other independent qualified groups confirming or disproving the findings. NIST ignored the evidence of explosives i.e. numerous witness accounts and experts like Romero saying it looked like a CD.

What about the experts who said that it wasn't? And the fact that the explosions weren't heard by everyone within a half-mile? Where are Hush-A-Boom Explosives' corporate offices, do you know? Sarcasm aside, explosions are expected in fires. Call your local fire department and ask them if an office building fire could produce explosions without explosives.

How do you know that has not happened?

Said the Truther, on the Internet.

The media is owned and controlled by a few corporations and anyone who talks is "Dixie Chicked". i.e. called a "nut job", ignored and often fired.

In other words, they became (in)famous for speaking out, enough to have a neologism coined based on them. Thanks for undermining your own point!

Van Jones lost his job for exercising his constitutional right to sign a petition.
The absence of a confession by someone who was directly involved is by no means evidence that there was no inside job.

Then please present evidence. Some sort of confe-oh, wait, you can't, because you just admitted they don't exist.

Many people with insider information have come forward but it is not reported in the media. Google "whistle blowers".

The whistleblowers support you in email?

Actually, I Googled. I just get definitions of what a whistleblower is. Can you please produce actual links to these whistleblowers? Ones with consistent stories?

Say, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, were the explosives in 7 planted before or after the building was damaged?

And why weren't explosives carried through the towers with the airplane parts and debris and human remains? They could've ended up just about anywhere in Manhattan, yet no one has approached the truthers with this weird stuff they found on their rooftop.

How did the wiring and detonators survive an hour of fire?

Why didn't the people who occupy the building notice the wiring, especially if it was durable enough to take a plane crash and an hour's fire?

And don't start mewling about how this'll "come up in the investigation". You need to have a theory of the crime that explains all of these outlying elements. Just one.

 

[Christopher7]

And we come to the center of the shrubbery maze.No. We cannot ignore objections just because you say so.

I did not say we should ignore objections, I said those objections should be addressed by having other groups repeat the experiments.

IIRC, the paper the nano-thermite paper was published in was later discovered to take a fake paper full of nonsense by people who didn't exist from an institution that doesn't exist, as soon as the payment was made. This calls its credibility into serious question.

That was a different journal.

These firefighters experienced huge explosions in the lobby. This is evidence of explosives

It's evidence of explosions. I can stick a bottle of water in the microwave and it'll explode. Does that mean water is an explosive

Idiotic comparison.
The explosions these firefighters experienced that destroyed the lobby should have been investigated.

What about the experts who said that it wasn't?

They don't negate those who did say it looked like a CD.

And the fact that the explosions weren't heard by everyone within a half-mile? Where are Hush-A-Boom Explosives' corporate offices, do you know? Sarcasm aside, explosions are expected in fires. Call your local fire department and ask them if an office building fire could produce explosions without explosives.

Not explosions that destroyed the lobby of a commercial building.

There are over 100 first responders who reported explosions in the "Oral Histories" and numerous videos of people who heard and felt explosions. It cannot be assumed that they were benign or explosives. That is what an investigation is supposed to determine. NIST ignored them all and that is unconscionable.

Google: 9/11 whistleblowers

 

[dafydd]

Google: 9/11 whistleblowers

Google: "this way to the real world."