9 Scientists from 3 Countries Find Tons of Nano Thermite Near 3 WTC Towers

[Cloxxki]

Could someone please point me to an official reason why Building 7 managed to catch on fire?
We have a terrible place crash in my country not too long ago. The Israelian pilot, in horror, understood that he would not be able to avoid a huge appartment building. Many live were lost, it was a cargo Boeing 747-258F...
Neighbouring buildings is same proportions barely had broken windows though.

Perhaps, to make it realistic, the high-temperature explosive were not used to make a big blasts, but a "controlled" super-hot fire to eventually have selected floor fail, and trigger a demolition-style collapse.
We shouldn't fail to consider that the "controlled" way the buildings collapsed may have been more coincidental than intentional. Who knows, if there was foul play, they may have hoped (the horror...) the towers to each tumble OVER in one direction. This might not have cost "many" more lives, but the anger of a completely distroyed district would likely have been even greater.

[jibbguy]

MH, It is true that "sh*t happens", certainly.

... But it usually emanates from assho*es.

Meaning that when two 747's collide, one or more persons screwed the pooch royally. Did it matter if they were hung-over and just failed to think properly? Not to the dead, it didn't. They are still dead.

9/11 was not a natural occurrence, as in a flood or hurricane. To try and equate the two is suggesting it was "inevitable". This question if it could have been avoided or not is a whole 'nuther huge topic. But for starters... In the previous year, 2000, airliners that had gone off course had been challenged in the air by US fighters via actual interceptions over SIXTY TIMES... Yet on this day, FOUR airliners were known to be hijacked, and no interceptions AT ALL ??

Anyway, back to the buildings..   

(we can "demolish" this first then move on to the other stuff if you like )

The worst example of free-fall speeds from that day is of course Bldg 7, which did fall within 1 or 2 secs of free-fall speed. It is a truly bizarre fall in many ways, and this is why i and many others tend to gravitate towards it over and over; as it really is the "smoking gun" for controlled demolition... As anyone CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES simply by watching the film footage. 

Willy Nelson said last year regarding Bldg 7 (he is a Truther):

"How stupid do they think we are??"

Indeed.

But despite the risk of dropping it in such a ridiculously obvious manner, that building "had to go" for several reasons... Which we can get to later.

Now unlike the "Two Towers"; Bldg. 7 falls from the "bottom-up" meaning the lower stories collapse first, although we can CLEARLY see that the central columns ALSO show collapse at the roof line AT THE SAME TIME, within about 1 second of the collapse beginning. This is highly intesting... It shows the center is collapsing NEAR THE ROOF, at the same time the lower stories are collapsing, over 44 stories away. This means there were two , synchononized, simultaneous collapses: One in the central area seen at the penthouse roof line, and one far away down towards the foundations, that allowed the greater mass of the building to fall straight down in a block.

If you understand the building's construction, there IS NO WAY the two occurrences could be linked.... Unless ALL the central columns were shattered simultaneously. Damn, what kinda "sh*t" does THAT ??

A very interesting scenario that WAS NOT addressed by the rather strange NIST report  (which was released only last year, was 7 years in the making, and WAS NOT reported on by the mainstream corporate media); which was confusing and incomplete, but seemed to blame LNG canisters used for cooking for collapsing a 47 story steel building... And of course natural gas does not burn hot enough to melt steel either, not even close to the point to "buttering" it (so it would supposedly easily bend). If it did, such tanks WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN BUILDINGS.

And it is important to remember that these beams & members of Bldg 7 had 100% INTACT fireproofing on them, unlike the "Two Towers" that had some LOCALIZED damage to the asbestos coating on the beams near the impact zones; which NIST played-up to the maximum possible extent in the earlier report on their collapse.

N.I.S.T. can't have it both ways, either: The asbestos coating loss was significant, or it wasn't.   

Another important aspect of controlled demo is, that the building must fall into itself, so as to not damage the surrounding area. To do this, the center must be made to collapse before the periphery. This is exactly what happened in the case of Bldg #7 . 

So many coincidences...

[utilitarian]

We have some facts that were televised that are hard to contest about 9/11.  We saw planes hit two buildings.  We saw fireballs.  We saw the towers collapse, and we saw WTC7 collapse afterwards.

It is not implausible that the planes caused all this.  You guys are making speculations, but without a model and a replication, you will never know for sure.  You are clinging to an opinion with some scientific support, but the counter theory has plenty of scientists behind it too.

If you guys want to move your theory forward, you are just going to have to come up with better evidence to convince people.  If you are satisfied with being on the far fringe, then you don't have to do anything.

[utilitarian]

Could someone please point me to an official reason why Building 7 managed to catch on fire?
We have a terrible place crash in my country not too long ago. The Israelian pilot, in horror, understood that he would not be able to avoid a huge appartment building. Many live were lost, it was a cargo Boeing 747-258F...
Neighbouring buildings is same proportions barely had broken windows though.

Perhaps, to make it realistic, the high-temperature explosive were not used to make a big blasts, but a "controlled" super-hot fire to eventually have selected floor fail, and trigger a demolition-style collapse.
We shouldn't fail to consider that the "controlled" way the buildings collapsed may have been more coincidental than intentional. Who knows, if there was foul play, they may have hoped (the horror...) the towers to each tumble OVER in one direction. This might not have cost "many" more lives, but the anger of a completely distroyed district would likely have been even greater.

WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from one of the falling towers.  I believe the theory is that some of the falling debris caused fires to start.

[z.monkey]

WTC7 was heavily damaged by debris from one of the falling towers.  I believe the theory is that some of the falling debris caused fires to start.

So, then, that very same afternoon they were able to "pull" the building with all the chaos and death and everything else going on.  Yeah Right!  It takes months to setup and plan a demolition.  As soon a George Jr. took power, and I do mean "Took" they started this operation.  This is no accident.  This is deliberate, pre-meditated mass murder.

Your argument is invalid...