IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Can this be the engine from United 175?

Landroger
post Jan 2 2016, 01:33 PM
Post #121





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
The only photograph I have been able to locate so far of the 'engine part', other than the shots taken at the Church Street -- Murray Street corner, is one single shot of an 'engine part' lying on the ground with the leg of a man in blue trousers and black rubber boots standing behind it at the 'Land-fill' where debris was being sorted and disposed of.
23Investigator

Going back to his first post, JosephR identified the engine from the Murray Street photographs. He said the identifying characteristics were the 'Tobi Tubes' that were fitted only to the earlier engines. Boeing 747 in the 'Seventies', he said. Since then, there seems to have been no confirmation or cross referencing. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference to the inescapable fact that something, very like a B762 hit the towers, but it would have been an interesting lead to follow if what JosephR said was correct. I'm a bit surprised that, with all the aviators on this forum, we haven't gone a little further with it.

QUOTE
I cannot help but wonder if, just as the EPA and Ms. Wittman did not test the air quality at WTC before pronouncing it fit to breathe, she and the agency might also not have checked radiation levels before declaring everything was normal?
Amazed

Oh I think Christie Wittman and the EPA measured the air quality and they knew it was poisonous. Mind you, I doubt even the EPA would have checked for radiation. The EPA were only conspirators after the fact and then only to comply with the White House directive that people go back to work in the Financial District. So there was no reason for them to check for radiation. They had to work at 'sexing it up' though, because by the 13th the air and dust was still 'Wildly Toxic'. Not just pH values and poisonous dust, but asbestos, dioxins, carbon nanotubes, glass and much more. New York should have been evacuated and any workers provided with full Hazmat gear.

QUOTE
And maybe you missed it, but I also wonder how, if the vehicle damage observed was attributed to "ordinary" heat (for lack of a better description) as you seem to claim, why was so much loose leaf paper floating around down there not effected in the least by that heat? For the nuclear theory to be complete, one must assume that significant advances in nuclear technology have been made since 1945. We may not be privy to exact details because so much is classified, but it's a safe assumption that progress has been made.
Amazed

I don't think the heat was anything like 'ordinary'. In pyroclastic flows, the particles carry a huge thermal load from the volcano - they are 'lava' however small - and in the case of the pyroclastic clouds seen during and after the collapses, what was driving them was the heat from Nanothermate reactions at up to 2500C. Those clouds were not simply 'dust' from the pulverised concrete, they contained the molten iron as it cooled from 1500C+ to the spheroids uniquely found in WTC dust by Steven E. Jones. The 'fingerprint' of Thermitic activity. They also contained not only the un-reacted Nanothermate left over from the enormous excess of explosives used, there was probably still reacting Nanothermate. Those vehicles suffered exactly what I would suspect from such pyroclastic clouds. Don't forget, I believe a number of first responders were either killed by them or badly burned.

The clouds were measured at 35mph on a street wide front, down every possible street and alley radiating from the Towers. The whole area had been scattered with A4 paper during the aircraft impact and the air was still full of it. What a dense cloud front advancing on paper on those street doesn't blow out of the way ahead of it, it will simply flash to ash as it overtakes. There would still be lots of paper, but none of it will have been subjected to the heat those cars were.

Advances in nuclear weapon technology? Yes of course, but probably not anything to make them 'the same as ordinary explosives', because there was no point. Probably the only advance over the 'Davey Crocket' and 150mm shells was a warhead for Tomahawk TLAMS and the land based Cruise missiles once based in Britain. And they weren't anything very different from Trident MIRV warheads. Because there didn't need to be. And once the wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved in the early nineties, there was no further need for battlefield nuclear weapons, especially ones that might be mistaken for big ordinary bombs. If it doesn't come off an F18/F15 wing or out of a B2 or A117 bomb bay, it ain't a nuke.

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 4 2016, 01:29 PM
Post #122





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



I knew there would be reference to 'Mininukes' somewhere. I was checking some facts for a friend of mine who is 'on the verge' of accepting that 9/11 was an inside job, and I found this. I know folks round here don't seem to be terribly supportive of Prof Jones et al, but I suspect we might have a tough time refuting him scientifically.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters...teven-jones.pdf

I have just read the whole thing and he even covers 'Tritium' and disease. Oddly enough, he has enough data to show just how unlikely 'Mininukes' are in the context of WTC destruction, without even mentioning the characteristic 'flash' that I believe to be the greatest argument against.

I am currently wading through some pretty heavy going Boeing 767 stuff, in combination with the information I got from a tame 767 driver. If anything comes out of it worth reporting, I shall duly report.

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 4 2016, 03:26 PM
Post #123





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Landroger

Quite a few "probably" statements in your last posts. Yes, probably this and probably that, but certainty that the damage observed cannot be the result of what NIST said it was--office fires.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 5 2016, 07:30 AM
Post #124





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
The clouds were measured at 35mph on a street wide front, down every possible street and alley radiating from the Towers. The whole area had been scattered with A4 paper during the aircraft impact and the air was still full of it. What a dense cloud front advancing on paper on those street doesn't blow out of the way ahead of it, it will simply flash to ash as it overtakes. There would still be lots of paper, but none of it will have been subjected to the heat those cars were.


I committed a bo11ocks in one of my statements, I'm sorry. I was cross checking myself and had cause to re-read Hoffman's paper (Ver. 3.1) on the energy requirements for the propagation of Pyroclastic clouds during and after collapse. In my above statement I cited the speed of advance at 35mph - that was wrong by a significant amount. My apologies. The correct figure was 35ft/sec (average for the first 30 seconds) which is actually just under 28mph.

In percentage terms a big error, however, in terms of what I went on to say about blowing any loose paper out of its path, it doesn't change anything so, no foul, no loss.

QUOTE
Quite a few "probably" statements in your last posts. Yes, probably this and probably that, but certainty that the damage observed cannot be the result of what NIST said it was--office fires.
Amazed

True, but 'probably' trumps 'possibly' and, in any case, I'm a Brit, we tend to understate or underplay rather than the opposite. What is your point? Between us we have established that office fires did not cause the collapse of any of the towers. Period. Let us move on. Are you prepared to defend mininukes versus nanothermate and can you make a case for doing so, or are we supposed to simply ignore any evidence to the contrary?

Were the iron spheres relevant and, if not, where did they come from given that they characterise WTC dust from conventional controlled demolition dust? Were the red/grey chips relevant or are they simply 'paint flakes' as Dr. Millett (NIST subcontractor) says they are? The ones he could not identify as any known surface covering or as anything used in the construction or repair of the WTC Towers? Incidentally, in checking that Dr. Cate Jenkins link I posted about pH values? Guess who popped up on page 13, 'possibly sexing up' pH vales? Correct Dr. Millett.

If only mininuke/s will do it for you Amazed, how many do you think it took to progressively destroy the buildings and roughly where were they placed? Top, bottom, centre, all three? And do you thus completely rubbish nanothermate and for what reason, or do we keep it on a backburner somewhere for future use?

Given what appears to be overwhelming forensic evidence of some form of Aluminothermic Pyrotechnic found in 'chain of custody samples' (admissible in court) at 'ground zero or close by; what evidence, other than minute traces of Tritium found in a drain and the assertion that 'people are dying of horrible diseases years later', does your case present? I beg your pardon; you also cite steel wall panels being flung 500ft and that is valid. But is that it? When a whole raft of anomalous 'observed effects' must be satisfied and accounted for?

Your fox, I think?

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 5 2016, 04:28 PM
Post #125





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



"Probably" is very much a subjective term, don't you think?

Yes, we agree that office fires did not cause the towers to collapse, but the 'big picture' and intelligent analysis demands that we examine more than just the collapse of the towers. Intelligent analysis demands that we examine ALL the damage observed, including pictures taken from overhead helicopters, my own favorite perch when viewing the ground.

What I say is that Jeff Prager makes a very persuasive case, and that his work is very well documented with many footnotes. A proper discussion requires that all participants be equally informed. I'm hoping that you will read Prager's work in its entirety, and then start a new thread here about it.

Absolutely the iron spheres are pertinent. As I have mentioned, I do not exclude the use of thermite or its related products. Indeed, it seems to me the case for it is very strong, undeniable.

Why must the use of thermite necessarily exclude nuclear? It does not, I say. Neither excludes the other, as each provides unique powers and properties in the demolition of the towers.

I have already mentioned many other observed phenomena, all documented in Prager's book. I respectfully urge you to read it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 5 2016, 07:33 PM
Post #126





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



Well, that didn't go well. I did as you suggested and 'looked in to' Mr. Prager and his 'interesting' views and immediately walked into a sh1tstorm of insult, back stabbing, sniping and a fair sized helping of total bo11ocks. This is a very British expression that you American's don't use, yet, I think, you are the poorer for it. It is the quintessential 'portmanteau' word with weight, passion and wry humour, that can mean almost whatever you want it to. You can describe something very good or the best as; 'The dog's .....' and something completely incomprehensible or very bad as; 'Total......'

I fear what I found was 'total.......' Complete and utter.........' I'm sorry guys, but at this stage in the piece we should be able to point to rock hard science, verifiable data and be grown up enough to put some of these things to one side, because they simply don't match the requirement for 'burden of proof'.

In the hour or so I spent looking at Mr Prager and his respondents, it became clear I had blundered into the world of science fiction. Directed Energy Weapons and nuclear weapons the size of an orange hidden in computers really are science fiction guys - and even if they weren't, they still wouldn't explain or match the all important 'Observed Effects'. I'm not going to itemize each and every one and the ways that these concepts fail; I've been on the 9/11 Timeline site all day, chasing down some very interesting information about WTC 7 and I frankly can't be asked.

Except to simply say; Flashes. Flashes, flashes flashes. Flashes....we havn'ah. Therefore; no nukes. Even the size of an orange. Niet Tovarich. And 'Persistent Fission' below ground for twelve weeks? Seriously?

And Directed Energy Weapons? Really? As I have explained, I am a retired engineer, but even I know the Inverse Square Law will gitcha every time, especially if there is dust or moisture in the air. If 'the weapon' - whatever it is, it could be a damn Star Trek Phaser for all we know about it - was mounted in WTC 7 then WTC 1 is in the damn way to zap Tower Two. If the 'beam' or whatever is fired from Battle Creek, Michigan and reflected off a giant space mirror, the damn mirror will recoil in the opposite direction, accelerating at about fourteen G! On top of all that, I have seen estimates of the energy required to vapourise those buildings in the way we saw, would require more than five times the power output of the entire planet! Gimme a break!

We have forensic evidence of a weapon that was capable of destruction as observed, was available to potential perpetrators and ticks every damn box on the observed effects sheet. Including the molten metal for twelve weeks. Brother Thomas is begging us to say; 'enough already!' In the balance of probabilities, Nanothermate ticks all the boxes.

Now, we have to go after the aeroplanes. You remember the aeroplanes? I have suggested a way it could have been done on another thread and I have learned quite a lot recently, about the 762 FMC and its IRS. It is almost accurate enough to fly for half an hour or so without a 'fix' and still hit a 208 foot target at between 600 and 800 feet automatically. I am told a route can be 'stored' and then the aeroplane 'turned off' overnight as I believe is the convention - it always was at BA. Do we have anyone on here who can verify this, without my having to read, learn and try to interpret a massive Boeing document about the 767? And what of the GPS 'Curved Approach' option, that some have said the 762 was fitted, but AA and UA had it disabled or 'switched off'? Anyone know about it or got an opinion?

Apart from 'believe nothing, trust no-one', do we have a forum consensus in the matter of Flight Data Recorders? It seems to me that some, all or none were recovered and some all or no data has been recovered or, if it has, released to knowledgeable people, like on here? Is it true that what has been released is full of disqualifying anomalies, like contradictory dates and times? Missing or anomalous fields, such as 'Cockpit Door' field (UA93 I believe) showing no change in any part of the flight?

This is what we should be discussing, not 'what brought the towers down - we know.

Landroger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 6 2016, 09:43 AM
Post #127





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Sorry Roger, you must have gone to the wrong place. I was recommending his ebook, entitled "911: America Nuked", not any particular website.

Because I am such a klutz with computers, a friend of mine emailed it to me in 5 different packages. I would be happy to email those to you, if you wish.

I will have to check out the website you mentioned, however horrible it might be. Curiosity killed the cat, you know?

I have fairly well excluded DEW, but if someone can make a compelling case I'm always happy to read something new.

As for FDR, those are addressed in other threads here at PFT. Dennis Cimino has analyzed the FDR from flight 77 and found it to be utterly contrived and fraudulent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 7 2016, 10:09 AM
Post #128





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Landroger

If it was not a nuclear event(s) at WTC, then what in your view caused the damage observed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 7 2016, 11:24 AM
Post #129





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
Landroger

If it was not a nuclear event(s) at WTC, then what in your view caused the damage observed?
Amazed

I am slightly puzzled by your question, because it infers that there is a forum wide acceptance that the Twin Towers at least, building 7 too, for all I know, was a 'nuclear event'? Seriously? If so, then I had better explain my position, if it hasn't already been made clear by my previous posts. My apologies to everyone if my point of view wasn't made absolutely clear.

First of all, the manner and speed of the collapses. In the gravity driven official scenario, Professor Bazant tells us that after initiation – which he does not explain – the entire top part of the building descends and begins to crush the floors beneath it. Chandler explains, with markers placed on the video image, this does not happen by observation. First, the antenna on the roof of the North Tower begins to move before anything else, indicating that the core columns somewhere below it had been cut and no longer supported it. Then the roof line begins to move and almost immediately is accelerating at 64% of gravity. While the roof line accelerates down, the destruction front remains almost where it began, in the ‘impact zone’, with little measurable downward motion yet. The upper block, far from destroying the lower block as it falls, is being ‘consumed’ at the growing destruction front. The majority of the upper block has disappeared into the blooming, pyroclastic cloud before more than a handful of floors downward motion of the destruction front is seen.

With the dust cloud increasing in volume exponentially, the destruction front can then be seen racing down the building, not quite keeping up with the mass of debris ‘free falling’ past it. Within can be seen large, multi-tonne fragments of the structure being violently ejected horizontally, at speeds up to seventy miles an hour (102ft or 31m/sec). Some were found 500 feet (152m) away from the building. This is evidence of an enormous amount of energy being released by some agency, far more than that available from gravity. Indeed, it is calculated that the thermal energy required to generate the pyroclastic clouds alone, exceeds the gravitational energy available from the collapsing structure, by an order of magnitude.

During the collapse, it is possible to see many ‘squibs’ in non-random places on various faces of the building, many floors below the destruction front. These appear to be indications of explosive ejections from within the building and are often characterised by grey/ white smoke, not black or dark grey. Remember, in order for the acceleration to be continuous, everything has to be smashed and torn apart before anything hits it and visibly ‘jolts’. A remarkable feature of the collapse of the South Tower – the first to fall after just under an hour – is the ‘tipping’, to an angle of some 22 degrees from the vertical, of the top thirty-three floors. Where the angular momentum (the rotational motion) of this huge block should, by adhering to the laws of motion, be compelled to continue and the whole block fall almost intact, outside the building footprint, this did not happen. Instead the whole block disintegrated within the building footprint and effectively vanished. Further evidence that it was being destroyed from within.

Eventually, almost everything is obscured by the vast and expanding clouds of dust and it becomes difficult to determine exactly when destruction has ceased. Various timing marks have been used, including the arrival of seismic signals at the Palisades NY observatory and network television display, real time clocks. Combined, these give a collapse time of between twelve and fifteen seconds, corresponding to an overall acceleration of just under two-thirds of Gravity. Indeed, although the seismic data does not corroborate the OCT/ NIST ‘Pile Driver’ theory, it does ‘unintentionally’ tend to corroborate a controlled demolition conjecture. From the start of collapse, the seismic trace is very small for some 12 seconds, after which a series of very large peaks (24 times as much energy) increase in intensity for about five seconds then fade off. The low energy signal is during the period the building was actually disintegrating, the high energy signal is the majority of it hitting the ground (some of it from over a thousand feet.) In the OCT/NIST ‘pile driver’ assertion, the ‘smashing force’ of the pile driver effect would be transmitted to the ground during the 12 second low energy period and show up as distinct spikes as they occurred.

As an initial response Amazed, perhaps you would be good enough to plug into that description, when and how your nuclear detonations occurred or, your view of how it happened and the sequence of events following the first nuclear detonation?

I shall continue with what I understand of what happened. In the dust collected by Jeanette MacKinlay on the day or day after 9/11 from her apartment, Prof Steven E. Jones found, apart from Gypsum, glass, asbestos, copper and dioxins, ferrous (iron) sphereoids. Because there is very little iron in a steel framed building, these attracted his attention and found that they are the fingerprint, a characteristic of the use of Thermite. This is puzzling, because although Thermite is not of itself powerful enough to create the observed effects, they can nevertheless create huge temperatures. High enough to slice steel with little difficulty.

I am sure I am or ought to be preaching to the converted, but I was asked the question so, you are getting the answer. Jones also found red/grey flakes or chips, that appeared to have very interesting chemical signitures. In collaboration with Pro Nils Harrit et al, it was found that the red/grey chips were, in fact Nanothermate, although because this stuff is so powerful and previously only known to be military in origin and use, it was not possible to say exactly what the stuff was. They did find however, that it was extremely reactive.

It is known that by the nano process that huge increases in power of such chemicals are possible, may be even orders of magnitude more powerful. Furthermore, by engineering the proportions of sulphur, barium nitrate, copper and other compounds within the 'Aluminothermic' base mix, thermate can become very much more versatile; from cutting, through very powerful rocket propellant to concussive/percussive 'move stuff about' actions can be promoted. Nevertheless, even the most energetic has a sound signature very much less than that of 'conventional explosives', particularly RDX, and this is strategically important if a covert action is required. That stuff has been found. That's what's called forensic evidence.

Rough calculation suggest that perhaps as much as fifty tons of this material were used in each building and although it seems counter intuitive, it would have actually been 'easy' and almost 'invisible' to load the building with at least this much stuff. I draw your attention to the ACE Elevator Co., and their nine month, 'largest elevator refurbishment ever', on the 90 elevators installed within the 47 core columns of the building. With a couple of blokes, wearing hard hats, Hi-Viz jackets and safety boots wheeling a pallet truck laden with cardboard boxes a few times a day, every day, who would even notice, much less remember? None of this stuff would need miles of detonating cord, because radio remote detonators had been around fro some time. but rarely used by contractors on economic grounds. I will concede there may have been need for a couple of blokes to go round to all of these in the days previous, to install batteries, because A) they didn't want an unscheduled detonation and B) we didn't really have LiOn or LiPo batteries then. There it is. The very selective detonations were controlled and fired from WTC 7 and can easily be made to exactly reproduce the Observed effects.

Over to you sir. In as much detail as I have, if you would be so good. I am genuinely interested. And don't forget to say how the unique, characteristic, blinding flashes of nuclear weapons were hidden in a building largely consisting of air and glass. And how one or more detonations of nuclear devices would not be seen by the Pallisades Seismic recorders, during the 12 or so second 'quiet' period during the collapse sequence.

Landroger.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 8 2016, 04:19 PM
Post #130





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



You're puzzled by the question? A one sentence question in English puzzles an Englishman? That is rather puzzling in itself.

I'm not into personalities, so I don't really care what Bazant or Chandler or anybody else says, for the purpose of this question. I am merely trying to engage in a rational public dialogue with you.

Put another way, what do YOU see as the source of the energy that blew those pieces out hundreds of feet? Or, do you even have any thoughts about that source of energy?

Or, what do YOU suppose was the source of the energy, the explosion, described by Willy Rodriguez that happened in the lower basement levels just moments before the airplane strike?

Yes, I think we are very much in agreement that ACE Elevator did have a major role in preparing the buildings for demolition. I take it you think they placed RDX in strategic locations, 50 tons of it?

Could you point me towards the evidence of RDX use, the chemical residue of its use?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Landroger
post Jan 8 2016, 07:37 PM
Post #131





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 47
Joined: 12-December 15
Member No.: 8,318



QUOTE
You're puzzled by the question? A one sentence question in English puzzles an Englishman? That is rather puzzling in itself.
Amazed

I was puzzled because I was under the impression that I had made myself quite clear? Obviously I was wrong and I will have to try harder.

QUOTE
I'm not into personalities, so I don't really care what Bazant or Chandler or anybody else says, for the purpose of this question. I am merely trying to engage in a rational public dialogue with you.
Amazed

The people I quoted are key 'players' in the piece and if you care little for what they say or have found, then you are missing huge chunks of information.

QUOTE
Put another way, what do YOU see as the source of the energy that blew those pieces out hundreds of feet? Or, do you even have any thoughts about that source of energy?

Or, what do YOU suppose was the source of the energy, the explosion, described by Willy Rodriguez that happened in the lower basement levels just moments before the airplane strike?
Amazed

I'm sorry, but are you actually reading what I write? You seem to be endlessly asking the same question, that I have answered, in full, not once, but several times. While, at the same time, you have advanced your (or Mr. Prager's) nuclear device theory one bit. Not a single detail. This is a very one way street, from my point of view.

QUOTE
Yes, I think we are very much in agreement that ACE Elevator did have a major role in preparing the buildings for demolition. I take it you think they placed RDX in strategic locations, 50 tons of it?

Could you point me towards the evidence of RDX use, the chemical residue of its use?
Amazed

To use another very British expression; 'Yor' avin' a giraffe!' (It's rhyming slang - 'You are having a laugh.' It loses a lot in translation.) I am almost positive I used RDX - as did NIST - as an example of an explosive that you specifically would not use. On the grounds of it being one of the loudest known explosives. No, I don't think they used RDX - that was a NIST decoy.

I THINK THEY USED NANOTHERMATE. As do a lot of others, for a raft of very good reasons, all or many of which I have elaborated above. Perhaps, before you give us a bit more information and texture to the nuclear device theory, you go back and properly read what I have written. Then, perhaps, we can continue the discussion.

Landroger
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 9 2016, 09:51 AM
Post #132





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thank you Landroger! After all that verbiage, the answer finally arrives--you think nanothermate is the source of the explosive energy at WTC. Thank you again. It's really so simple, eh?

Do you suppose it was nanothermate exploding that Rodriguez and his mates experienced?

And I would like to make clear that I simply find the nuclear theory the most complete and plausible theory. I am not married to it. I simply cannot find another theory that explains all the observed damage.

Clearly the NIST theory has failed from the start and in many ways, so I reject that theory.

The nanothermate theory you embrace may be valid. I am not sufficiently informed about the properties of nanothermate to judge it.

I am open to any and all theories, and I hope someone, maybe you, can persuade me with a plausible theory to explain all the damage observed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 9 2016, 11:15 PM
Post #133





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 10 2016, 12:21 AM) *
Thank you Landroger! After all that verbiage, the answer finally arrives--you think nanothermate is the source of the explosive energy at WTC. Thank you again. It's really so simple, eh?

Do you suppose it was nanothermate exploding that Rodriguez and his mates experienced?

And I would like to make clear that I simply find the nuclear theory the most complete and plausible theory. I am not married to it. I simply cannot find another theory that explains all the observed damage.

Clearly the NIST theory has failed from the start and in many ways, so I reject that theory.

The nanothermate theory you embrace may be valid. I am not sufficiently informed about the properties of nanothermate to judge it.

I am open to any and all theories, and I hope someone, maybe you, can persuade me with a plausible theory to explain all the damage observed.


Dear 'amazed' and 'Landroger'.

What you both are discussing is very important --and the cause of many of the deaths on the day of 9/11 and subsequently right up to present time.

The discussion must continue and perhaps some others will contribute.

This "topic" is about the engine from United 175?

Perhaps admin would like to create a new thread, or adjoin your current contributions to a previous thread on the same subject --or similar-- where the topic could be solely concentrated on?

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 10 2016, 09:14 AM
Post #134





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks Robert, and you are quite right.

I suspect LR and I are through with that digression.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 5 6 7
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th September 2017 - 11:17 AM