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

[jibbguy]

Yeah but Bldg 7 wasn't (47 stories, close in size to the Beijing hotel and Barcelona & Sao Paulo bldg's).... And a plane didn't hit it. 

The color and of the smoke is significant.. Black denotes a lower temperature fire.. Which is exactly what plastic provides. Not hot enough to melt steel by a long shot. The only substance that had a dog's chance in hell of ever melting it in those towers, was the jet fuel. And it burned off relatively quickly... Because those poor souls could not have been on those floors if it hadn't.

And the whole crux of the NIST argument on the towers, was that the impact blew away the asbestos coatings of the steel members in that area (because with the asbestos intact; their whole scenario was "smoke" and broken mirrors anyway).

That dog ain't hunting with Bldg 7.  The little bit of flames and smoke we saw coming from it were a joke.

Contrast that to a building that burned with flames literally 300 feet long, that burned for over 2 full days without melting any steel at in Beijing 5 months ago.

[MileHigh]

Jibbguy:

You know my pet theory for Building 7, we discussed it just the other day.

Black denotes a lower temperature fire.. Which is exactly what plastic provides. Not hot enough to melt steel by a long shot
.

If you followed the point that I made tonight, that doesn't matter.

And besides, black smoke?  I bet you that the fire was burning "hot" and "cold" at the same time in different places.

MileHigh

[Cloxxki]

So, next time I am commissioned to perfectly implode a 47 story steel building, I only need to wrap a brick in a newspaper, set it on fire, and throw it through a random window? Then, step back 10 feet from the building face, and roast done hog dogs on a long pole as I wait for the imminent implosion?

[Cap-Z-ro]

*sprinkles nano-thermite and mustard on hot dog*

[jibbguy]

Sorry but your earthquake theory (caused by the towers falling), does not take into account several factors:

> There were several "non-WTC" buildings, just across the street, that were not affected by this in any way  (except for relatively light exterior damage from debris coming from the Towers collapses, of course). The WTC did not exist in a vacuum, the entire area is extremely densely populated with high rise buildings... It's Manhattan.

> Besides despite them having horrendous physical damage from the tower debris (and most of them burning brightly with fires MUCH worse than Bldg. 7's), Bldgs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the complex (also STEEL buildings) DID NOT collapse. They had to be demolished later by workers ("pulled" with explosives).

> the "perfection" of Bldg. 7's fall, with the central penthouse seen to be dropping in relation to the main roof, at the same time the foundations are collapsing 46 stories below; does not fit the profile of one caused by earthquake. In fact, the only profile it does fit is that of controlled demolition.... Where EVERY main central member is blown out simultaneously, so it "implodes" neatly into its own footprint (which it certainly did).

Another thing about Bldg. 7 ; many have asked why the sprinkler system did not put out those small fires... Then the official story claimed that a water main break a few blocks away was the reason for this... I guess they were hoping that peeps remain unaware of the facts. All high rise buildings have large water tanks near the roof . This is for two reasons: The standard line pressure is not enough to raise water up to the higher stories, and so the sprinklers can use them in emergencies. So their explanation as to why the sprinklers in #7 did not douse the small fires there is hogwash as well.  Someone would have had to deliberately disable them.

_________

Changing the subject back to the airliners a bit: One thing that was a sure tip-off to me that something was wrong, was this:

Back in those days, i traveled by air constantly... 4 times a month on average for my job. I've taken off on airliners over 800 times by my estimate... I truly was a "road warrior" for many years. In fact i was in Greenville, SC that day giving a training class.

So when i realized that ALL FOUR airliners were lightly peopled, with relatively few passengers in each... I knew something was wrong. Here's why:

In my experience, if a plane has few passengers, that flight is usually canceled. It is "illegal" to do so... But they have ways around it Their favorite method is to claim a mechanical breakdown. Their favorite one of those is the rear gas turbine "generator" They cancel the flights to save money, especially when they have another leaving in a couple hours to the same destination, ALL THE TIME for this reason. These flights were in this category: All had later flights to the same place. This has happened to me more times than i can count; and i bet others here have had the same experience.

And these "main corridor" flights, with the early take off times, are usually booked solid, as this is the best time for business travel... So how the hell did we have FOUR of them with less than 50% occupancy?

A) They should have been booked solid or close to it; as morning flights to large cities usually are.

B) By my experience, at least 2 of those would have been canceled for phony maintenance reasons (...really to save money). Because the airline had multiple flights to the same destination that day.

Flight #93 had 33 passengers. It's capacity was 188.

Flight #11 had 76  passengers (capacity 165).

Flight #77 had 53 passengers (capacity 188).

Flight #175  had 51 passengers (capacity 165).

It is ANOTHER "amazing coincidence" of 9/11 ... They sure add up; don't they.