You know squat. Flying Hani's route on that day with the rapid drop in altitude to 5 feet, excessive speed towards the final maneuver, city obstacles not including smashing through 4 light poles. It was invariably more difficult to hit the building from that angle than a controlled dive hitting the top of the building.

Many planes have crashed before just hitting one light pole or power pole.

Wrong. A hypothesis is not proof.

Lmao.

No one currently contends thermite brought the buildings down. But many at NIST have an intimate knowledge of what possibly could bring the buildings down as we saw.

It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillotson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --

“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”



1: NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nano-thermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillotson et al 1999).


2: Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic materials” (Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).


3: Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers (Howard et al 2005).

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.


4: Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.

Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels.

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle (where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings (Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional materials” (Army 1999).


5: Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica, ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking research effort for nano-thermites.



6: NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).



7: In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003). Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2 2008).


8: NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008). Additionally, NIST’s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).


9: Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project (Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).


10: As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST partners with the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999, Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that “At that time, this was [the] only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States” (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities.

Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for “demolition materials” (NSWC 2000).

A tragic coincidence left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on the plane said to have hit the Pentagon (Flight 77). He had for many years worked on “deep-black” projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).


Untrue, you are simply parroting an assumption you have heard.

Ok, I will address what I promised to, the seismic events...

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2
17 seismic signals were identified between the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7 (start around page 670 [332 on this volume])

"about a dozen other weak signals were recorder by other seismic stations in the area"
(they don't know for sure) and 5 unidentified signals

and 10 seismic events ( 0.4 to 1.2) were attributed to quarry blasts (but provide no empirical proof) or explosions at construction sites (pg 675)

2 signals were attributed to earthquakes, one cited from West Irian jaya, Indonesia and one unidentified earthquake

the five unidentified signals came from the area of WTC

Seismic observations on 9/11

So, the sound of it would have dropped to 124-134 db in Hoboken. Gotcha.

Ok, what other explosive would be able to cut the core columns? Do the math, and give me a weight per column. I'll wait.



Simpleton? LOL! Ok, gotcha. I never said I did not find any fault in the "official story". I think that there was alot of CYA. Does it prove an inside jobity job? No. I also think, based on my professional opinion, that NIST estimates for burn time and temperatures are wrong, but it does change anything. They have shown that even at the lower temps, and less burn time, it still would have fallen.

Now, stop lying, liar.

Huh?

Quick? Ok, so your opinion means????

Also, not quite rock bottom. Usually steel scrap would average $150 per ton. The WTC steel was sold for around $120 per ton. $30 difference. Yeah, not quite rock bottom as you claim.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm


http://911depository.info/PDFs/Other...20Recovery.pdf

Im so sorry. My bad....


Det cord does not instantly vaporize. Remember the Nat Geo show "Conspiracy" where they blew up the bulding? The guy walked for 15 seconds and was able to find two large pieces of det cord.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q5S0...eature=related Starts at about 2 minutes in.


Those are called suspended ceilings. They can't hold the weight of a person.

No, it means I work one day on, and then have two days off. Sorry, I understand that reading for comprehension is not your thing, but aparently math is not.

In the WTC? I would guss most like, anywhere from 50-1000. Have you ever been to NYC? There are movie theatures that are open 24 hours. Fine dining restaurants, 24 hrs. 24 hr bowling alley. Just about everything in NYC is 24hrs. Yes, there are exceptions.

Can you go back and try again if you miss by divebombing the top? Nope. If he didn't line it up right coming from the side? Most likely.

But ProTec did.

You are referring to RDX which NIST claimed would heard far away at 140db . I disagree that it would have been 140db at a 1/2 mile at that level serious and permanent damage sets in. A half mile away... inside a skyscraper. Look no one thinks C-4 blew up the WTC. Why use the data for RDX then?

Nano-thermite post #1225, you must have missed it.


I do not intend to prove 9/11 was an inside job.



Well it is great to hear doubt coming from you, for the first time, regarding the official line.

Are you naive or vindictive??... doesn't matter. I have no reason to lie.



That was your statement that I quoted improperly.

I trade metals, I would know.


After the US companies made a tidy profit India still got a 20% discount.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm Same link I've had bookmarked for a longtime.



You see that is nothing, when you say that 100% of the debris was gone through, you are thoroughly mistaken. Debris was sifted through, but not even a majority.

Search Giuliani scoop and dump... you know the story.

From me to you, the below should concern you.

FACT:

NIST had around 1% of the core columns from WTC 1 & 2 and none of them got above 250 degrees celsius.


Not a big deal.

So det cord is necessary in all demolition, or no. (the answer is no btw)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q5S0...eature=related Starts at about 2 minutes in. [/QUOTE]
That guy has never done anything like a 110 story sky scraper and he could do it in 3-6 months with his rag tag team of rednecks.



Wrong, not the weak metal grid ceiling tiles.

These trusses can certainly hold a man's weight. (disregard notes on image)



So you have ruled out the logistical possibility of rigging the building b/c you work a couple long days a week. Lol. (yes I know that's not what you meant)

Yes I have been to NYC, and no most of the offices were not typically occupied by a 24 hour a day work force. Elevators have direct access to core columns, elevators remodeled in 2000 btw.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove about the damage to the pentagon. Do you think that Flight 77 did not hit it? I mean what is your theory here? The evidence that it did hit is quite overwhelming. You can go through the majority of it here:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lie...videncesummary (notice there is a page 2 link at the bottom, also)

It is monstrous. It includes:

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

And it includes a map of where the bodies were found. Not sure how anything but a plane crash would cause this arrangement, myself:



I just don't understand what alternate theory you are proposing to explain all this with regard to the Pentagon attack. Can you clarify?

Mrmusicrecorder,

If you think thermite was responsible for bringing down the WTC buildings, do you no longer believe the witnesses who claim to have heard/saw explosions saw anything unusual?

Phil, you stated that there was "really nothing of value" in afgan. Are you aware that one of the two most profitable cash crops in the world has experienced it's largest crops during US occupation? Does controlling this cash flow have no value? Do you not think our CIA could use this unreprted cash in it's budget? Why dis you make this statement?

Sooooo defensive. I am saying it is too convient for the ptb to find the perfect piece of evidence to back up their stories. We are told many things by gov and media and I choose not to believe this one. My opinions on who and why the situation occured are not relevant

Come on, please don't be like that. I'm one of the few people who embraces your posts. Don't crap on your allies. Anyone looking for information on any of the names and topics I presented can procure them with the most basic of Google searches. There are wiki entries for Rowley, Edmonds, the Phoenix Memo, and all the rest. I don't have time to write a dissertation. It's pretty clear that damaging evidence against the coincidence theory story was silenced and suppressed.

Rowley's memo complaining to her superiors was related to the Phoenix Memo, as well as the mishandling of the Zacarias Moussaoui evidence, so quite connected even though it came many months later. There's nothing I want explained as "innocuous" about what she wrote, because there IS nothing innocuous about it. The contents of her memo spell out undeniable means and opportunity into hindering intelligence that would have easily thwarted the attacks. This intelligence failure was NOT due to incompetence of any "breakdown" in interdepartmental communication. It was willfully suppressed at the highest levels of the FBI and CIA.

As for FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, and what she and her colleague found after 9/11, watch Kill the Messenger:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0745569143497#

For example...?

What are some alternatives you consider likely?

Also, you didn't address my questions:

"What would they have done with all those explosives if the hijackers failed to gain control of the plane, got their box cutters confiscated in security, or got cold feet about killing themselves for the cause? Or even if they just hit the buildings in such a way that WTC7 wasn't apparently affected much?"

Would that plan really make any sense?

Not common, but also nothing new.

This is the Muslim world (Muslim majority countries): Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Morocco, Iraq, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Kazakhstan, Niger, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Libya, Jordan, UAE, Kygyzstan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Lebanon, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Kosovo, The Gambia, Bahrain, Comoros, Qatar, Djibouti, Brunei and Maldives.

It's not some cohesive land of brotherhood. Is there a "Christian world"?

How do you move evidence that you cannot access? Easy you destroy it!!
Look into who and what went on with building 7, open those pretty brown eyes.

Ok, you got me. I spent the last 15 minutes on wtc7.net and its links and nowhere do they mention anything about "evidence you cannot access". What is it? One of the pages mentions the CIA office and having the agents "scour the rubble in search of secret documents". Are you implying that those documents would be the plans for 9/11?

So, since my eyes are closed, open them and tell me why they had to destroy the building instead of moving any files/computers/etc to some other location.

BTW, not once do they attempt to detail how the building was prepped to be brought down. One page mentions thermite but doesn't actually go into detail how it could have happened.

Please, pray tell, whip me up a reason how someone could plant explosives/thermite/moon dust in order to CD the building, but couldnt go in and remove whatever evidence was in there?

Furthermore, why are they keeping evidence of the conspiracy two blocks down from the target of the conspiracy?

2.8 billion per year is pocket change.

Especially after 9/11 itself when cash was handed around freely with no record or oversight.

Hey guys, lets go invade Afghanistan to get a chunk of that 2.8 billion dollar a year industry.

Sure Dave, how much will this cost?

Well, about 10 billion per year in the first year. Also if i had a crystal ball i could predict that will rise to 72 billion a year by 2010.

Yeah, those sums make sense to me, lets go about killing thousands of civilians in the twin towers. Oh and lets hit the Pentagon for extra effect, to bring the DOD onboard with our invasion plans.

Hi Zaboo...

Umm, laundered drug trade profits pump far more than a mere 2.8 billion into the global economy. Try closer to 600 billion each year.

While I don't deny the 600b figure, I'm not sure how you could argue that controlling the drug trade in 1 country equals controlling the global drug trade.

You went up a few notches for the Zaboo reference

2.8 billion is the approx export value of the opium grown in Afghanistan in 2009, according to the UN. The trade has stayed largely the same despite our occupation, but if you want you can just double the figure and its still a tiny chunk of change for the CIA and makes the invasion worth virtually nothing. As i said, the first year cost was around 10 billion, which i assume didnt include bribes to local warlords who did a lot of the fighting.

End of the day if the CIA did decide to go to Afghanistan to get their hands on a chunk of 2.8 billion all they had to do was go to Congress and say they need 2.8 billion to increase resource effectiveness and retool their structure from the old cold war setup to something better suited to modern global counter terrorism. Which by and large they did.

The idea that Afghanistan drug trading is some kind of payoff is pretty dumb on the face of it.

Are you talking about the Worldcom and Enron information? Did you hide under a rock since then? Both those companies top officers were arrested, charged, and sent to prison for their activities.

Of course, the bill for "security" is also about oil pipelines through that country, but back to the importance of illegal drug money laundering:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=3294

The Afghan trade in opiates (92 percent of total World production of opiates) constitutes a large share of the worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, which was estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $400-500 billion.

(Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a Changing World, Technical document No. 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations, Vienna 1999, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000).

Based on 2003 figures, drug trafficking constitutes "the third biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade." (The Independent, 29 February 2004).

Afghanistan and Colombia are the largest drug producing economies in the world, which feed a flourishing criminal economy. These countries are heavily militarized. The drug trade is protected. Amply documented the CIA has played a central role in the development of both the Latin American and Asian drug triangles.

The IMF estimated global money laundering to be between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year, representing 2-5 percent of global GDP. (Asian Banker, 15 August 2003). A large share of global money laundering as estimated by the IMF is linked to the trade in narcotics.

as i said i dont think there was controlled demolition on 9/11, but if you are going to presuppose that CD did take place, then surely it isn't a giant leap to address this with:

'had the hijackings been unsuccessful, the targets would have been 'bombed', causing massive damage and extensive fires. the explosives rigged in the WTC I, II and 7 would then be detonated shortly thereafter, collapsing the buildings as a result of the bombs and fire damage. 9/11 would be known as the day that al-queda hijacked 4 planes and also blew up the WTC'

so thats a pretty terrible 'gotcha!!!@' hypothetical question and it seems weird to me that it wouldn't be obvious to you

it is almost about as bad as the "LOL YEAH THE OL CONSPIRACY THAT 5000 PEOPLE ARE IN ON AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT LOLZ"

OK, so if "Al Qaeda bombed the WTC with controlled demolitions techniques" was an acceptable story, why the coverup?

Why have a Plan B at all? Just bomb them in the first place, and when people are all like "hey that looks like a controlled demolition" the government could nod and say "Yeah we think Al Qaeda had access to construction experts, what a tragedy."

I am saying a 757 did not fly into the pentagon on 9/11.

The evidence that a 757 crashed into the pentagon is just not there, it does seem as though a plane or jet flew into that building, but it couldn't have been a 757.

I could give you a theory here and speculate as to all the possibilities, if you were an objective source to bounce ideas off of it may be constructive. You are not an objective source to bounce idea off, you are so entrenched in the official story (which is jumbled and contradictory) .

Maybe something that wasn't a 757 hit the pentagon.