Well I have looked deeper. I've read Dr Steven Jones' paper, I've read a lot of the criticisms of its findings, I've read the rebuttals by Jones and other GENUINE physics professors that concur with his findings, I've read direct discussions between Jones and Professor Ola Nilsen on the matter of why the red/grey chips within the samples cannot possibly be paint, as Nilsen claims, along with discussions concerning the thermal properties and reactions Jones and his colleagues claim to have observed when testing the dust particles, ALL of which, are consistent with a nanothermite reaction, a very expensive, explosive compound, which is classified top-secret and only utilised by military agencies, and is certainly beyond the means of a bunch of rag-tag rebels living in a cave in Afghanistan.
Have you? Because if you have I find it difficult to understand how you can infer that there are no legitimate questions to answer here. Especially when you add this to the wider evidence surrounding the nature of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7; explosions both seen, heard and felt at various levels of 1, and 2 including sub basements; the fact that they all fell at free-fall speed; the fact that molten metal was observed beneath the rubble for weeks after, via thermal photography, the presence of which was also attested to by members of the works crew that worked at the site in the aftermath.
And to suggest that this research be dismissed simply on the grounds that you can find it at Bentham Open Access with no consideration as to who actually published it, a retired Professor of physics known to specialise in catalysed fusion and archaeometry, is absurd frankly! You then go on to infer that because Jones' paper is published here, there's a question mark over the author's authenticity, which given the fact that it's been circulated and discussed in very serious quarters by serious experts with regards to thermal fusion physics, is even more absurd.
Evidence of both detonated and un-detonated nanothermite particles HAVE been found in dust collected from the site within days of the collapse, and yeah Bomber, some of the residents DID go around collecting some of the dust. Exactly why they did that I don't know, but they did, so there we are. And it's good that they did because it's important forensic evidence This is especially important when you consider just how much forensic evidence was spirited away from the crime scene, which in itself is a CRIME btw, by the mayor of New York in the days after the collapse.
Chicago Blue:
I'm sorry that your mate was a pilot on one of the planes that hit the towers that day. I feel very deeply for the all the victims, their families and their friends. it's true there's a massive amount of Bollocks and BS bandied around as 9/11 truth. That the planes were flown deliberately into the Towers is beyond dispute, but there are some very legitimate questions around how and why these buildings collapsed, especially WTC 7, which was never hit by a plane. We're told by a US government enquiry that fire was the cause, despite the fact that is has never happened before in the history of skyscraper construction, along with a body of evidence that seems to suggest otherwise. With respect, to not seek the truth of this via an INDEPENDENT enquiry is in my view disrespectful to everyone affected by it. If I'd lost someone in the tragedy I'd want these questions examined independently and answered to my satisfaction, because until they are, there won't be any closure, and sweeping it all under the carpet for the sake of controversy or misplaced notions of patriotism is unacceptable. Fortunately a great many other people feel the same way.
CTID
Have you? Because if you have I find it difficult to understand how you can infer that there are no legitimate questions to answer here. Especially when you add this to the wider evidence surrounding the nature of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7; explosions both seen, heard and felt at various levels of 1, and 2 including sub basements; the fact that they all fell at free-fall speed; the fact that molten metal was observed beneath the rubble for weeks after, via thermal photography, the presence of which was also attested to by members of the works crew that worked at the site in the aftermath.
And to suggest that this research be dismissed simply on the grounds that you can find it at Bentham Open Access with no consideration as to who actually published it, a retired Professor of physics known to specialise in catalysed fusion and archaeometry, is absurd frankly! You then go on to infer that because Jones' paper is published here, there's a question mark over the author's authenticity, which given the fact that it's been circulated and discussed in very serious quarters by serious experts with regards to thermal fusion physics, is even more absurd.
Evidence of both detonated and un-detonated nanothermite particles HAVE been found in dust collected from the site within days of the collapse, and yeah Bomber, some of the residents DID go around collecting some of the dust. Exactly why they did that I don't know, but they did, so there we are. And it's good that they did because it's important forensic evidence This is especially important when you consider just how much forensic evidence was spirited away from the crime scene, which in itself is a CRIME btw, by the mayor of New York in the days after the collapse.
Chicago Blue:
I'm sorry that your mate was a pilot on one of the planes that hit the towers that day. I feel very deeply for the all the victims, their families and their friends. it's true there's a massive amount of Bollocks and BS bandied around as 9/11 truth. That the planes were flown deliberately into the Towers is beyond dispute, but there are some very legitimate questions around how and why these buildings collapsed, especially WTC 7, which was never hit by a plane. We're told by a US government enquiry that fire was the cause, despite the fact that is has never happened before in the history of skyscraper construction, along with a body of evidence that seems to suggest otherwise. With respect, to not seek the truth of this via an INDEPENDENT enquiry is in my view disrespectful to everyone affected by it. If I'd lost someone in the tragedy I'd want these questions examined independently and answered to my satisfaction, because until they are, there won't be any closure, and sweeping it all under the carpet for the sake of controversy or misplaced notions of patriotism is unacceptable. Fortunately a great many other people feel the same way.
CTID