View Single Post
Old 22-07-2013, 12:33 AM   #42
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Likes: 35 (18 Posts)

Originally Posted by cousin_frothy View Post
What you say about the drills during terror events is the exact point, the powers that be know that this has been noted by investigators, so to keep doing that is 'illogical'

How were cars charred half a mile away from the scene?

How can nano-enhanced thermite turn buildings to dust?
read the bit about starwars beams.

Interesting read that, but your points first:
The correlation between false flag terrorism and state run drills is well known to those of us who have been skeptical of 9/11 and who have researched it for years, and became a really major issue after the London bombings because of Peter Power. But it was not so well known in 2001. Personally I had never even heard of such a thing on 9/11 and didn`t until I read Ruppert`s and Tarpley`s books in 2003-2005. I think this explains why we have seen no major false flag attacks since then, and instead small scale school shootings and ridiculous "terrorists" like Richard Reid and Abdulmutallab, where the events are small scale. What I think you`re missing is that even though they know we know they just can`t execute attacks like 9/11 without drills because they have to conceal the planning and preparation from the bureaucracy they are using to organize them. If they just openly start carrying out false flag terrorist attacks without drills they will be resisted and exposed by naive Dudley Doorights in the system, and they do exist. Unless the entire machinery of the state can be criminalized down to the last person -janitors included- they need drills.

When it comes to the charred cars, which were actually rusted if you look into that, have a look at the collapses again. The clouds stretched for miles, covering the entire Manhattan peninsula and spilling out into the East River and the Hudson. Now, if the clouds were full of reacting nano thermite then they will have been able to produce rust on metallic objects in the path of the cloud. If the material was done reacting or hadn`t ignited then it would not have caused rust, which could account for uneven distribution of rust, perhaps even lines down the sides of them, like I have seen in Wood`s photos. I just don`t see how rust can be claimed to be evidence against the nano thermite hypothesis when rust is the main byproduct of it. In fact, nano thermite is rust that has been developed in a lab at the molecul√łar level.

Red grey chips. Rust on one side, molten iron on the other.

And even if the nano thermite hypothesis is wrong, what in the space beam/DEW theory can explain rust and the other forensic traces of nano thermite in the dust?

About turning the buildings to dust I don`t know, and it was one of the things that made me not believe what the US government was saying from day one. But as the paper you linked to says, there`s no evidence of a building having been demolished by nano thermite in the past, so we really have no way of knowing what that might look like. And since the towers were so large, the quantities of whatever explosives you use will necessarily have to be great, and by the looks of things, if they used explosives they really packed it in there. Just the vaporization of the top of the south tower that started leaning out over the street makes it look like every square centimeter of the building had been sprayed with the stuff. In addition, the fact that the dust clouds were reported by witnesses to be extremely hot also supports the hypothesis that they contained reacting nano thermite attached to the grains of dust. I realize that this leads to a few follow up questions like why people were not being burned etc, but we just don`t know, and have no real way of testing or examining those questions properly.

As for why I support Jones, Harrit and others in the nano thermite hypothesis it is because they are the only scientists who have performed research and experimentation on the actual dust from the collapses. And when they did the molecular evidence is precisely what you would expect from nano thermite: condenced drops of molten iron, rust chips and even unreacted nano thermite which Jones successfully ignited in his lab. This also proves by the way that the tempratures reached were high enough to not just melt steel but vaporize it before it cooled and settled as droplets in the debris. Unless the space beams produce unreacted nano thermite and nano scale iron drops as a byproduct I would tend to maintain that this proves that nano thermite was used to demolish the buildings, since these are precisely things nano thermite produce. If it was just from the cleanup the dust would not have any nano thermite in it because it would have blown far away before the cleanup began.

Look at this lecture by Niels Harrit where he explains why the evidence found in the remains of the collapses proves that nano thermite was used. Neither he or Jones have ever claimed that it was the only thing used, but that it was the only thing they could prove was used through their laboratory research.
It is even possible that space beams were used along with nano thermite and conventional explosives, but we would need to know what effects we can expect if this is the case, and we would need solid forensic evidence for those effects. So far I just don`t see it.
As interesting as this is though, perhaps we can try to focus on the drills more specifically in this thread, since that was why I started it. I understand that it`s connected because the drills, at least to some extent, fit the demolition hypothesis slightly better, but maybe we can continue the DEW/thermite conversation in one of the other threads about that on this site instead. I am trying my best not to get sidetracked, which is quite the challenge when I love discussing things so much

Last edited by skulb; 22-07-2013 at 02:51 AM.
skulb is offline   Reply With Quote