Everyone who resorts to insults in this thread just undermines their point of view. You may call us despicable - or try to discredit the people doing the research, but that just goes to show your unwillingness (fear?) in examining the facts.
No one is saying 9/11 never happened. This has nothing to do with holocaust deniers - it is simply a challenge to the official story, which has holes in it big enough to fly several planes through.
Now, I was gonna pass on this thread as I'm trying to break old habits, but a couple of you PMed me asking for info so here it goes:
For starters some clarification must be made.
Thermite vs Nanothermite
I had dismissed the thermite theories a long time ago - it's just not practical as far too much of the stuff would be needed to take down a building of that size. Also since it is made of such common material (essentially rust) it would be damn near impossible to trace.
But
nanothermite.. that's a whole different ballgame. A very small amount of it is capable of eating through steel like a hot knife through butter. This stuff is a relatively new invention and is not easy to make at all. We are talking about chemical compounds engineered at the microscopic level in a laboratory. This is nanotechnology people, highly advanced and well beyond the abilities/resources of mountain-dwelling terrorists.
With that established, this is where things get
really interesting:
Researcher Kevin Ryan published a paper (Journal of 9/11 Studies) taking notes from NIST's official report on WTC collapse. Ryan noted the extreme coincidence that, wait for it:
The floors in the towers where structural failure was initiated exactly correspond to the floors where fireproofing had been “upgraded” in 1999 and 2000.
(
See this diagram)
This new fireproofing was much thicker than the norm, according to NIST's official report:
NIST WTC report NCSTAR 1-6A (p xl) said:
“The overall average thickness determined from the 356 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in, with a standard deviation of 0.6 in.”
So let's look at the prep-work for people that say this theory is totally impractical:
1. A fireproofing "upgrade" precisely in the zones that gave way. The people applying this stuff probably had no idea what was in it.
2. Massive maintenance work for months on the elevator shafts (which were surrounded by load-bearing columns)
3. Full power-downs of both towers the previous weekend before 9/11
4. Bomb sniffing dogs denied access a few days before the attack, despite a heightened state of alert.
5. The security company overseeing it all is run by George Bush's brother.
6. In the months leading to 9/11, good people working inside the CIA quit their jobs after their superiors stonewall them from investigating Al Qaeda (in particular the flight training schools where Atta and friends were learning to fly planes)
I'm no physicist or professional investigator, but looking at this picture makes me think that more scrutiny is required in order to assess the true cause of that collapse, along with the possibility of foreknowledge at very high levels of government.
THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING!
I am not assuming that I am right or anyone else is wrong. You won't hear me saying we need to hang Bush, or arrest Cheney, Rumsfeld and everyone else. All I am asking is that we look at the evidence objectively.
Now
ArcBound raised a very good point. The samples of WTC dust were obtained by the scientists years after the incident, raising the probability of tampering/contamination. Ignoring the fact that a civilian could never tamper military-grade nano-explosives into that dust, it's a valid concern.
And here's the rub:
NIST and FEMA have access to WTC debris. They could dispell this theory (which is rapidly gaining traction and making them look like fools/criminals) by simply submitting some of it to independent testing. Yet they have categorically refused every time.
I know a few of you have posted this segment of video before, but this one has a few bonuses in it towards the end. You should really watch the whole thing because it actually shows some of anomalies of the WTC rubble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
Look at how the beams fuse together with concrete. Jet fuel cannot do that! Only the high temperatures of explosives can explain such a reaction. (or the fact that there were fires burning hotter than jet fuel for weeks in the basement which liquified the steel)
Put your prejudices and emotions aside and look at the big picture. Even if you think all "truthers" are lunatics and the official story seems plausible to you, at least examine the facts instead of taking what you've been spoon-fed.
Take a look at the survivors and families of the victims demanding an open, independent investigation and realize that they do deserve answers when so many questions are raised.
As for this:
Rogue said:
Why should I waste my time on this lunatic fringe topic? Nobody cares. (This forum, full of conspiracy theorists, is not representative of the general population.) The 9/11 "truth" movement has grounded to a halt and even Google Trends shows Americans don't give a fvck. Why, because science and reason won.
1 in 3 Americans thinks this was an inside job. I'd hardly call that a grind to a halt.
Thanks for the laughs though, I do enjoy the irony of someone using terms like "burden of proof" and then pulling statements like that out of their ass.
FWIW, the source you cited (Popular Mechanics) is run by the Hearst Corporation, and their track record of accurately reporting the facts is not exactly stellar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst
Can you say "Yellow Journalism"?
Then there is this
A) Real experts (for example, structural engineers) are ignored in favor of armchair non-experts;
http://www.ae911truth.org/ 1400+ Architects and engineers apparently are amateurs in your book. I usually respect your opinion but you are way off here. (and far too emotional about this subject to remain objective/scientific)
