THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

You can assert that if you want, but it is only an assertion.

I'm making assertions?? You're the one who comes up with a silly theory that by no means explains what happened to the inner core and outer shell, yet I'm the one making assertions?!?

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

Perhaps you should start from the null hypothesis and work forward instead of making tendentious claims? Controlled demolition is not the ONLY explanation, just one of a myriad of theories, and one I am not convinced by.

Controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation for why the inner core and outer shell collapsed. It is the ONLY explanation for the building collapsing at near free fall speed. There are only a myriad of theories when you ignore the actual architecture of the WTC towers (I'd expect more from someone who claims to have experience as an engineer).

If you believe I'm wrong, then please address my objections from the previous post (which you conveniently ignored by falsely accusing me of making "assertions"). That just might get interesting

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

I'm making assertions?? You're the one who comes up with a silly theory that by no means explains what happened to the inner core and outer shell, yet I'm the one making assertions?!?



Controlled demolition is the ONLY explanation for why the inner core and outer shell collapsed. It is the ONLY explanation for the building collapsing at near free fall speed. There are only a myriad of theories when you ignore the actual architecture of the WTC towers (I'd expect more from someone who claims to have experience as an engineer).

If you believe I'm wrong, then please address my objections from the previous post (which you conveniently ignored by falsely accusing me of making "assertions"). That just might get interesting

No, actually I didnt ignore the actual design when i did my thumbnail calc on how much explosive it would have taken. Now, naturally, I cant speak to the use of nano-thermite since it is not an explosive commonly used in demo applications...yet lol. I have looked at the fire-collapse scenario and to me it seems not only plausable, but in fact probable. Just because you dont understand it does not mean it is just as much a viable option. You assert the controlled demolition as being the ONLY viable option, which is is not, and I have conceded that it certainly is possible, however improbable I might think that it is. Calm down, have a smoke, and stop getting so wound up lol.

[Out of the Box]

Then please explain what happened to the central columns? Why were traces of nano-thermite found (are you suggesting they were planted?)? Why did the buildings go straight down at near full speed rather than just break in the middle as one would expect?

Without an answer to these questions, I find it hard to take any option other than controlled demolition seriously.

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Then please explain what happened to the central columns? Why were traces of nano-thermite found (are you suggesting they were planted?)? Why did the buildings go straight down at near full speed rather than just break in the middle as one would expect?

Without an answer to these questions, I find it hard to take any option other than controlled demolition seriously.

I would love to see the report where nano-thermite was found. Care to link?

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I would love to see the report where nano-thermite was found. Care to link?

Here are two articles (by the same author) referring to the study (they use the term "aluminothermic explosives" instead of nanothermite, though) :
- Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple - Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand
- Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Here's a video on the topic.

You Tube

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Here are two articles (by the same author) referring to the study (they use the term "aluminothermic explosives" instead of nanothermite, though) :
- Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple - Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand
- Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Here's a video on the topic.
YouTube - A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles )

I would be more convinced if it wasnt a single source claim, but I will take a look.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I would be more convinced if it wasnt a single source claim, but I will take a look.

Let me know your findings. I'm curious

[EireEngineer]

Originally Posted by Out of the Box

Let me know your findings. I'm curious

OK, will do. I should let you know what it would take to change my mind first, and you can tell me if it is reasonable.

1. The samples must have provenance. There must be some way to prove, within a reasonable doubt, that they are actually from ground zero, and not just cooked up in a garage.

2. The material must be capable of burning at the advertised temperature. This seems like the easiest one to satisfy, and it looks like it has.

3. There must be a feasible application method. Its no good if the explosive you are using is difficult or impossible to emplace, or blows up during the elevator ride.

I dont think it should be too hard to prove these, if this is indeed what happened. I will keep researching this week and let you know what I find by the weekend.

[Out of the Box]

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

1. The samples must have provenance. There must be some way to prove, within a reasonable doubt, that they are actually from ground zero, and not just cooked up in a garage.

How do we do this? How can one prove the origin of these samples?

As you probably know, ground zero was locked down and "cleaned up" by FEMA soon after 9/11 making a thorough independent investigation at the site impossible (which is already suspicious). I'm not sure how these people got their samples, but it couldn't have been easy to obtain them (if they're genuine).

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

3. There must be a feasible application method. Its no good if the explosive you are using is difficult or impossible to emplace, or blows up during the elevator ride.

As a layman in this area, I have no way of judging this myself...

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

I dont think it should be too hard to prove these, if this is indeed what happened. I will keep researching this week and let you know what I find by the weekend.

Great. I'll be looking forward to your findings.

[revolution60]

watch this, and then if you have the balls, watch the other 27 parts to this, and tell me that all of this is pure coincidence

YouTube - 911 Hidden in Hollywood - Part 1