High Rise Building "Experts Speak Out" about 9/11

Shyam Sunder NIST WTC Lead investigator said it was. I don't believe him.

 

Interesting...You whine about reporters lying,yet you give Dan Rather a pass because it fits your wild story...

Hilarious,besides..no det cord found in the debris

 

...no explosives traces found by bomb-sniffing dogs...and no exploives found period.

 

I see...so when I say NIST wasn't looking for explosives, you fellas sat that's a lie. Then, when I call you on it, you say NIST had no reason to look for explosives. The shill dance, again. Really, it's beyond obvious at this point so, save it for somebody else, please.

 

Anything to avoid anything pertinent and factual. Distortion, is their specialty. They'll keep at it until it wears you down, and then they'll say you ran away. That's just one phase of the dance.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the shill playbook. Keep people's heads spinning, and claim somebody else is doing what the team does.

 

Good lord. The clean up crews searched the rubble for anything which could be used in the investigation. They were the ones looking for evidence of explosives, as well as human remains.

They didn't find any explosives, and so NIST never investigated the possibility of explosives. NIST didn't "look" for anything.

This is simple stuff....

 

Good Lord. Agree on ONE conclusion, could you guys? It IS simple stuff, and it should be because, one uniform story or explanation should suffice, if it's the truth.

 

Why would the NIST look for explosives? The were none fould by the recovery people, none detected by the bomb-sniffing dogs and two planes that crashed iinto the WTC loaded with fuel that started plenty of office fires to heat up the steel.

Would you look for a baseball in a football game?

 

You guys can't seem to agree on whether they did or didn't, is my point here. Inconsistent? I'd say so. It's almost like you don't wanted to be tied down by any one controversial detail. Soon as someone tries to pin you down, another specialist comes in and claims the opposite. Maybe the team could get its act together, and settle on ONE simple answer? They either looked for explosives, or they didn't. Pick one.

 

We agree on ONE conclusion,sigmund.....You troofers are the ones who can't agree

 

I see. Back to insults, again. Round and round goes the merry-go-round.

 

What 'insult'?

Really,You're an adult,stop whining

 

A statement of objective fact is not a "theory." Perhaps you should spend some time brushing up on the meaning of the word.

That said, it now appears that you've never actually read the paper. Because the paper actually never draws that conclusion. It hints, and hems, and haws, and implies, and waves its hands... but never once does it come out and say that any thermite was found in the dust. The closest it comes is to assert that, "These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere."

Wow... it "reminded" them of something. It doesn't get much more vacuous, mealy mouthed and noncommittal than that.

As to the assertion that it was peer refereed journal, this also turns out to apparently be untrue. When the editor-in-chief Professor Marie-Paule Pileni of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie discovered that the article had been published without going through any of the normal editorial or referee process, she resigned in disgust. As to the paper itself , she said:

Of course none of this even begins to address the sheer stupidity of the thermite theory in the first place. In 2001, nano-thermite was mostly theoretical, and the necessary nano-particles were insanely difficult and expensive to create and acquire. It would be equally likely that the WTC towers were taken down by laser beams, or a gravitron disintegration ray. The theory is entirely a gratuitous fantasy.

Another few words you do not apparently understand; "precisely," "literally" and "identical." The resemblance is entirely superficial, and cannot survive actual detailed scrutiny. The building did not implode into its own footprint. It did not fall in a controlled manner. It was a progressive rather than an instantaneous collapse. And (here's the key) it left behind no trace of the massive demolitions infrastructure that would have been necessary to pull it off.

The one characteristic that all serious proponents of the controlled demolition theory share is that they actually have no experience whatsoever with controlled demolitions. They are primarily just people like you; hopeless amateurs who have watched Youtubes of buildings imploding. This includes that fraction of the "nearly two hundred eye-witness" you cite whose testimony you are not twisting into something more amenable to your prejudices.

Oh? Where'd you get that idea?

Do not mistake the cretinous credulity of you and your fellow truthers for deception by the good guys. It just makes you look petty.

 

That hardly means he would know the first thing about nano-thermite.

Too bad he has no "expert opinion" on the subject of nano-thermite.

 

That's not strictly true;



The problem is that their conclusion does not match their test results.

They also fail to mention how it may have been used.

They fail to mention why there is so much of this unreacted material in the dust.

Pretty much they fail on every level.

 

I question the academic fitness of an alleged chemistry professional who does not know kaolin on sight and wonder why anyone would put that form of it in anything other than PAINT.

 

The NIST didn't but the recovery/rescue effort did....So, answer the question. The bomb-sniffing dogs didn find ANY evidence of explosives so.....are they lying also?

 

Good question. Were the bomb-sniffing dogs trained to detect thermite?

 

thermite isn't an explosive.

you guys claim explosives went off in the WTC

 

Well Ronstar. Either explosives went off in the WTC towers or Newton's third law of motion was violated. Pick one.

 

the dogs found no explosives.

no explosive residue was found in the WTC remains.

 

Neither happened

 

Well one of the two had to happen. Which is it? Either we live in a world where the laws of motion are valid or we don't.

 

The true engineering experts agree that 9-11 wasn't an inside job.

 

9/11 was an inside job. You can believe in fairy tales all you like but 9/11 was an inside job. Spend three hours of your life to learn the truth.

[video=youtube;4fvJ8nFa5Qk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk