Unreacted Explosives Found in WTC Dust

[mcfcbird]

OK, So you have read the papers that concurr with your thoughts but to give a balanced view point did you also read in detail the papers/findings that dont agree with your views?

Or does the conspiracy just seem far more exciting than the dull fact that a bunch of murderous lunatics hatched a very well executed plot to fly two packed airliners into the World Trade Centre thus killing thousands of people and subsequently ruining many more thousands of lives?

I haven't read a paper that's concurred with my preconceived notions, or thoughts!

I had no idea that any actual evidence, aside from the circumstantial evidence of molten steel in the foundations and the state of Iron support structures that were photographed before the mayor had a chance to dump them in the Hudson, existed, until I read the paper.

Then AS I PREVIOUSLY STATED in my original post, I read the discussions between the critics of the report and members of Dr Jones' team who were rebutting the criticism. These discussions have been widely circulated on the web sites of both sides of the argument. Something that I personally welcome, because open debate is good.

Having said that, no, I don't believe the official line, there are TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLAPSE OF THESE BUILDINGS. FIRE ALONE COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT!

And now we find EVIDENCE of the presence of nanothermite. All I'm saying is that I believe this is sufficient, having perused a lot of the data, to warrant a full INDEPENDENT enquiry by experts OUTSIDE the control and influence of the U.S. government. But if you're not convinced or swayed by these findings, then fine, you have your answers you can rest easy. I on the other hand share the concern of a great many people, people that include wives, family and loved ones of victims who perished, that there is more to this than we are being told.

 

[Matty]

Having said that, no, I don't believe the official line, there are TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLAPSE OF THESE BUILDINGS. FIRE ALONE COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT!

How do you know? Unless you are an expert on structural engineering or thermodynamics then that's basically just a randon statement you've made, with no basis in fact.

Reading the occasional 'article' on the internet, or watching a TV show or two doesn't make you any more informed than the rest of us. I watched a program on the collapse of the twin towers which documented exactly how the towers could have collapsed based solely on aircraft striking them. This doesn't make me an expert, far from it, but it would indicate to me that your statement above is far from accurate.

 

[mcfcbird]

I haven't read the paper yet, but if the findings are correct and they go onto be verified by the scientific community then.... well, can you imagine the consequences?

It won't, there's too much at stake. If it was proven true, it'd make the Kennedy Assassination seem like a shop-lifting offence.

So, just to clarify, if the Scientific communtiy verify it then that means there was a conspiracy, if they don't verify it then that means it was too inflammatory and there was too much at stake, so therefore there was a conspiracy.

Hmmm, quite.

I'd suggest, as Prestwich_Blue has stated, the author has found certain details that help to back up the 'story' he wishes to tell, and he's portrayed them in such a way as to make it seem like there's only one possible scenario where these 'details' could have happened.

Conspiracy theorists fall into one of a few categories:-

1 - Those that find it easier to believe a conspiracy than accept the facts that a person/people could act in such an evil manner.

2 - Those who have such a hatred of government/authority that they'll take any opportunity to attack them.

3 - Those with limited intelligence that believe everything and anything put in front of them.

4 - The severely paranoid/dillusional.

I'd ask yourselves which camp you fall into?

What have you specifically found that gives your suggestion any basis? Other than his paper proposes and offers scientific evidence to support a view that you don't share.

And if you're prepared to suggest the author is being less than honest about what he and his team believe they've found, then you haven't read the paper. He hasn't made this stuff up, how do you explain the iron rich spheres that he found, ELEMENTAL IRON, extremely high temperatures would be needed to produce them, higher than anything that can be produced by burning hydrocarbons or by burning jet fuel.

I don't believe that I fall into any of your categories actually,

1. I don't run around yelling 'CONSPIRACY' at every major global event or mad idea and I'm quite able to accept that people can act in an evil manner.

2. I have a healthy distrust of government, I admit, as should everyone, whether you're talking about Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, the UK or gasp, yeah, even THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't share that distrust? Because that would be naive.

3. Well your number three is insulting to be honest, having said that I think it's a more accurate description of your attitude than of mine. All I'm saying is that there's enough evidence to warrant an independent investigation of the facts, something that has yet to be undertaken with regards the 9/11 attacks. This would benefit everyone. A free and impartial investigation by experts in the field might put it to bed once and for all, how can anyone object to that? The dead deserve that much, don't they?

4. Dillusional? Well maybe, I am a CITY fan after all, but paranoid, no.

As to the suggestion by another poster that the molten metal that was smouldering for weeks beneath the rubble was the result - I can hardly bring myself to type it, it's so ridiculous - of a liquidised jet fuselage and traces of aluminum in the structures - I'll leave you with these:

Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

VARIOUS MEDIA SOURCES

 

[Matty]

I haven't read the paper yet, but if the findings are correct and they go onto be verified by the scientific community then.... well, can you imagine the consequences?

It won't, there's too much at stake. If it was proven true, it'd make the Kennedy Assassination seem like a shop-lifting offence.

So, just to clarify, if the Scientific communtiy verify it then that means there was a conspiracy, if they don't verify it then that means it was too inflammatory and there was too much at stake, so therefore there was a conspiracy.

Hmmm, quite.

I'd suggest, as Prestwich_Blue has stated, the author has found certain details that help to back up the 'story' he wishes to tell, and he's portrayed them in such a way as to make it seem like there's only one possible scenario where these 'details' could have happened.

Conspiracy theorists fall into one of a few categories:-

1 - Those that find it easier to believe a conspiracy than accept the facts that a person/people could act in such an evil manner.

2 - Those who have such a hatred of government/authority that they'll take any opportunity to attack them.

3 - Those with limited intelligence that believe everything and anything put in front of them.

4 - The severely paranoid/dillusional.

I'd ask yourselves which camp you fall into?

What have you specifically found that gives your suggestion any basis? Other than his paper proposes and offers scientific evidence to support a view that you don't share.

And if you're prepared to suggest the author is being less than honest about what he and his team believe they've found, then you haven't read the paper. He hasn't made this stuff up, how do you explain the iron rich spheres that he found, ELEMENTAL IRON, extremely high temperatures would be needed to produce them, higher than anything that can be produced by burning hydrocarbons or by burning jet fuel.

I don't believe that I fall into any of your categories actually,

1. I don't run around yelling 'CONSPIRACY' at every major global event or mad idea and I'm quite able to accept that people can act in an evil manner.

2. I have a healthy distrust of government, I admit, as should everyone, whether you're talking about Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, the UK or gasp, yeah, even THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you don't share that distrust? Because that would be naive.

3. Well your number three is insulting to be honest, having said that I think it's a more accurate description of your attitude than of mine. All I'm saying is that there's enough evidence to warrant an independent investigation of the facts, something that has yet to be undertaken with regards the 9/11 attacks. This would benefit everyone. A free and impartial investigation by experts in the field might put it to bed once and for all, how can anyone object to that? The dead deserve that much, don't they?

4. Dillusional? Well maybe, I am a CITY fan after all, but paranoid, no.

As to the suggestion by another poster that the molten metal that was smouldering for weeks beneath the rubble was the result - I can hardly bring myself to type it, it's so ridiculous - of a liquidised jet fuselage and traces of aluminum in the structures - I'll leave you with these:

Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.

An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures". Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A rescue worker "crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam"

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

A witness said “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks (page 3).

According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said "in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

VARIOUS MEDIA SOURCES

I'm sure, if I could be bothered, and I wasn't currently at work, I could trawl the internet and find numerous quotes that backed up the "it happened the way they said it happened" standpoint.

Having read your post it would seem your point is "it was too hot". Have you any understanding yourself of these "facts" or have you simply read something, believed it, and quoted it?

You talk about 'elemental Iron', as iron in itself is an element I assume you simply mean 'iron'. Have you heard of the 'iron age' at all, it was around 1200 BC – 400 AD, and uncivilised men managed to create heat high enough to make iron plyable, are you really telling me a plane crash, plus jet fuel, plus the number of combustables in a 100+ storey skyscraper couldn't create heats hot enough to liquify and/or vapourise iron?

As for the temperature remaining hot beneath the rubble for days, so what? What is your point? If it was explosives rather than an aircraft crashing into the towers why would this cause far greater heat? Again, the fuel, the materials and the insulating affect of thousands of tons of debris would mean temperatures, and fires, would continue for days.

This author, whos words you are clinging on to, has found certain things through his investigations, lets for the sake of argument suggest he hasn't doctored the data/evidence and he did indeed find everything he's saying he did. Just becaseu he's found something doesn't mean his interpretation of what he's found isn't suject to a certain degree of impartiality. I'd be astounded if he didn't start his investigation with the aim of finding "something amiss", if you're looking for anomalies then you'll find them, because you'll see EVERYTHING as an anomaly.

For example, someone has been turning off the electricity recently to my girlfriends flat. They've been switching it off at the meter in the reception. The result is the electricity goes off completely, no TV, no fridge, nothing. On Sunday the electricity went off, the affect was no TV, no fridge, nothing. However, upon going to the meter downstairs I found the switch was still on. It turned out to be a power cut. In both scenarios the details were the same, no TV, no fridge, nothing, as I was biased/expecting it to be someone switching it off that was the asumption, based on the details/data to hand, that I came to. In reality it was something else entirely (a power cut). There was no denying the power went off, but the reason for it was less certain.

 

[ElanJo]

For example, someone has been turning off the electricity recently to my girlfriends flat. They've been switching it off at the meter in the reception. The result is the electricity goes off completely, no TV, no fridge, nothing. On Sunday the electricity went off, the affect was no TV, no fridge, nothing. However, upon going to the meter downstairs I found the switch was still on. It turned out to be a power cut. In both scenarios the details were the same, no TV, no fridge, nothing, as I was biased/expecting it to be someone switching it off that was the asumption, based on the details/data to hand, that I came to. In reality it was something else entirely (a power cut). There was no denying the power went off, but the reason for it was less certain.

I agree. The thermite signature could be a mixture of other elements which could make it look, and act, as tho it is thermite. Whilst that sounds abit far fetched to me, I am not educated in this particular field.

I really hope that the scientific community picks up on Dr. Jones' work. All I want is the truth and if the scientific community agrees with/cannot disprove Jones' findings then that would raise serious questions that will need answering.

I've seen practically all the questions, allegations and debunking there is out there and I do not believe it was an "inside job", but if the above scenario comes to pass, concerning thermite, it matters not what happened , or didn't happen at the pentagon or shanksville etc etc etc, there is enough there to warrant an official, independent, investigation into the origins of the thermite.

On the subjects of the pentagon. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it was hit by a missile, but if I was, for arguments sake, true it doesn't matter where the plane, and its passengers, went. If someone was to prove it was a missile then they do not need to find the whereabouts of the missing plane.

 

[Anonymous]

Having said that, no, I don't believe the official line, there are TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLAPSE OF THESE BUILDINGS. FIRE ALONE COULD NOT HAVE DONE IT!

From architects (who I presume know more than me & you about the structure of buildings)...

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

 

[HelloCity]

The WTC complex is the only known set of 'skyscapers', which has ever been documented to have been collapsed by fire. The scene was 'perfect', and went way beyond what you would think to be possible. It's like giving a bunch of students 2 grand to make a movie and then a year later they come back with Terminator 2.

Now, I know people within the media who have been advised not to run such 'conspiracy' stories despite there being enough to put forward for a strong case, and this is mostly because of the implications it would bring.

 

[masterwig]

If it was heat that caused the fall then surely the towers would have been likely to fall much more slowly and with some inaccuracy rather than straight down.

There have been loads of towers that have set on fire though admittedly none as tall as the WTC but not one of them has collapsed. There have been towers that burned for days and would surely have reached similar temperatures as the WTC reached yet even when some of the top floors collapsed the structure stayed standing.

 

[mcfcbird]

I'm sure, if I could be bothered, and I wasn't currently at work, I could trawl the internet and find numerous quotes that backed up the "it happened the way they said it happened" standpoint.

Having read your post it would seem your point is "it was too hot". Have you any understanding yourself of these "facts" or have you simply read something, believed it, and quoted it?

You talk about 'elemental Iron', as iron in itself is an element I assume you simply mean 'iron'. Have you heard of the 'iron age' at all, it was around 1200 BC – 400 AD, and uncivilised men managed to create heat high enough to make iron plyable, are you really telling me a plane crash, plus jet fuel, plus the number of combustables in a 100+ storey skyscraper couldn't create heats hot enough to liquify and/or vapourise iron?

As for the temperature remaining hot beneath the rubble for days, so what? What is your point? If it was explosives rather than an aircraft crashing into the towers why would this cause far greater heat? Again, the fuel, the materials and the insulating affect of thousands of tons of debris would mean temperatures, and fires, would continue for days.

This author, whos words you are clinging on to, has found certain things through his investigations, lets for the sake of argument suggest he hasn't doctored the data/evidence and he did indeed find everything he's saying he did. Just becaseu he's found something doesn't mean his interpretation of what he's found isn't suject to a certain degree of impartiality. I'd be astounded if he didn't start his investigation with the aim of finding "something amiss", if you're looking for anomalies then you'll find them, because you'll see EVERYTHING as an anomaly.

For example, someone has been turning off the electricity recently to my girlfriends flat. They've been switching it off at the meter in the reception. The result is the electricity goes off completely, no TV, no fridge, nothing. On Sunday the electricity went off, the affect was no TV, no fridge, nothing. However, upon going to the meter downstairs I found the switch was still on. It turned out to be a power cut. In both scenarios the details were the same, no TV, no fridge, nothing, as I was biased/expecting it to be someone switching it off that was the asumption, based on the details/data to hand, that I came to. In reality it was something else entirely (a power cut). There was no denying the power went off, but the reason for it was less certain.

Okay, I'm not interested in, or in the habit of "trawling the internet" as you put it for material or data simply to win an argument, or prove I'm clever, to appear clever, or whatever. I've got Megs of stuff on this subject sitting on my HD.

All I've been saying if you'd read the posts - and I mean simply that they're long and not everyone has the time to - is that YES, there IS a lot of BS bandied around arguing a wider conspiracy. 9/11 WAS a conspiracy. There's no doubt about that, the official line SAYS so. A group of alleged Islamic extremists conspired to crash passenger jet planes into major buildings within the US, armed with box knives. The question is, was the conspiracy wider than we have been led to believe.

Over the years I've collected hours of video and reams of testimony, articles, reports, challenges to those reports, rebuttals etc, etc. I don't accept all of it, I don't selectively pick and choose to fit any preconceptions or pet theories I might harbor. I don't HATE America. I've honestly tried to be objective in my view. I came to the conclusion that there was enough circumstantial evidence and contrary witness testimony to warrant an independent review of ALL the facts surrounding the COLLAPSE of the WTC 1, 2, and 7. I don't need to start listing them again. My point is that the victims and the bereaved deserve proper closure, and the doubts need to be addressed. I'm not talking about PODS, or whether the plane was remotely piloted, or whether there was a plane at all at the Pentagon, I've been concerned with the question, could the impact of the jets coupled with the burning of hydrocarbon materials in the building generate enough heat and power to bring the buildings down? In the case of 1 and 2 I think it's unlikely, in the case of 7, I think it's impossible. That's not a knee jerk opinion, it's been arrived at after years of looking at the arguments on all sides of the equation, and I'm definitely not alone in that view.

The evidence presented in the paper that I've been referring is the most compelling yet, for the use of thermite explosives in the destruction of these buildings, and raises serious questions, and to be frank, to suggest otherwise, or to further suggest that the results of this analysis has been doctored for devious or misguided means, is in itself misguided when you look at the discussions that are going on between International experts in the field. If the results were that easy to dismiss, these very prominent people, such as the Norwegian Professor that I've already mentioned in my opening post, wouldn't waste a minutes fuckin' time on it. So there are questions to be addressed, they think so, and they're experts in the field.

Elemental Iron - what I meant was pure iron, as opposed to iron oxide, which was also detected and is also consistent with the claims, was found in the make up of the spheres that Dr Jones is talking about. Yes other things can cause the presence of iron oxide, which is exactly what is being currently discussed within those academic circles, but when considered alongside all of the other thermal reactions he's seeing in his analysis, Jones and his team are confident that they are the result of the presence of nanothermite. He also claims to have found evidence of the presence of UNIGNITED traces of nanothermite, and says so clearly in his paper and illustrates his points from established, accepted papers from very respectable sources, including the U.S. government. Read it if you don't believe me and you can find the time. It's well written and clearly presented, not a paper full of scientific sounding bollocks.

Now some people have made up their minds and that's find, they can rest easy. Many more, and I count myself amongst them, see this as FURTHER evidence, perhaps even the best yet, that there is more here than what we're being told. Deliberately misled? Perhaps, but not necessarily. The problem is that the government investigation of this crime was inadequate, in that many of the people on the investigative panel had insufficient construction experience to be able to say for sure WHY these buildings collapsed, they even state that in the report. An investigation by an international body of experts in the field could possibly lay to rest once and for all, whether or not explosives were used in the bringing down of these buildings.

The heat question. Is that a serious question? Because if it is there's little point going any further with this. The point is, the only thing that could generate the kinds of heat that could cause some of the effects that were witnessed by survivors, rescue workers and scientists investigating the scene of the crime over the following weeks, is thermite, a form of explosive that's used predominantly by the military. Construction engineers use explosives, yes, even some that are thermite based, but the after effects of 9/11 left many of them baffled, because they saw thermal effects that they've never seen before in their experience, which suggests that if explosives WERE used, they were of a highly unusual, possibly even secret nature. Nanothermite would fit that description perfectly. Some leading physicists are taking the time to debate this, based on the findings in Jones' paper, why would they waste their time if Jones could so easily be banished to the lunatic fringe?

"Clinging to Jones' words". I'm discussing his paper, his findings and the resulting controversy, which is the whole point of this thread.

Jones has presented what he and his team have found along with his conclusions. There is a debate as to the interpretation of the data, but as of yet, and I've been following these discussions closely, there hasn't been one satisfactory rebuttal that's been strong enough to end the debate. Not from any stubbornness or misguided desire to be right that clouds reason, but from solid science. He isn't simply seeing what he wants to see, doctoring the data, his revealing his findings and illustrating, via the use of wider, accepted, published data in the field, that what he's found is entirely consistent with the use of nanothermite compounds.

Have we signed Tevez yet?

 

[without a dream]

Surely if this nano-thermite burns as hot as they say there's not going to be any left as the heat from one of the alleged detonations woul have ignited it all?