Featured What's The Difference?

I have a theory alright.



My theory is you have no rational argument to support the government's outrageous conspiracy theory.

And you just proved it.

 

Sorry, I didn't know you asked me that question.

What do I believe about the Holocaust? I believe what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. Same reason I believe the three WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11. That's what the evidence shows.

I don't see what the Holocaust has to do with the destruction of the three WTC buildings on 9/11 other than you are trying to setup some narrative that deflects and distracts from the fact that in order for the "official conspiracy theory" to be true "19 Muslim terrorists" would have had to suspend the laws of physics to accomplish the complete destruction of those three buildings at or near free fall speed.

Let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that attacking me personally makes the impossible possible?



PART 1 - This was taken from a Dutch tv show that was investigating the events of 9/11. An expert on controlled demolition, Danny Jowenko, was asked to review the video of a building collapse. He did not know that WTC 7 collapsed on Sept. 11 at approx. 5:40 pm. As he watched the collapse, he did not have any doubts that the building was brought down by controlled demolition. It was then revealed to him that the building was part of the 9/11 events. He was shocked but stood by his original assessment that the building was brought down with explosives. So, the question that needs to be answered is: How can a 47 story building completely collapse into its own footprint in less than 7 seconds?



PART 2 - DANNY JOWENKO'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.



PART 3 - DANNY JOWENKO'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.

 

Note to the reader. What Walguy is doing here is setting up a strawman to knock down, Nowhere have I accused Bush and Cheney of blowing up any buildings or murdering anyone. His argument if it can be called an argument at all relies solely on character assassination and a desperate appeal to emotion rather than any rational refutation of the evidence I have provided.

Expect these types of strawman arguments and personal attacks to become more regular and shrill as I continue to show how outrageous the government's "official conspiracy theory" truly is.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=x...cs+thermite&pg=PA657&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=true

Popular Mechanics reported on thermite used to cut steel in demolition? That's weird.

Thermite Grenade Cuts Through Steel

Demonstration of a thermite grenade manufactured by ALS Technologies, Inc., a Bull Shoals, AR.-based less lethal and defense logistics company. Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction. If aluminum is the reducing agent it is called an aluminothermic reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the "fuel" and an oxidizer. Its form of action is thought very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder.

http://www.military.com/video/ammunition-and-explosives/grenades/the-thermite-grenade/983538042001

Thermite Grenades - Intense Heat
Special hand grenade is used to destroy weapons, bunkers and vehicles.

Thermite grenades are one of the most destructive weapons used by the U.S. military.

Molten Iron

A wide variety of hand grenades are used today by the U.S. military. Hand grenades are loosely defined as any anti-personnel device that explodes on release. The M67 is the current fragmentation or “frag” grenade used by American and Canadian soldiers. However, the most destructive hand grenade used by U.S. soldiers is the thermite grenade.

A powerful incendiary device, thermite grenades produce intense heat through a chemical reaction. Thermite is known as a "pyrotechnic composition" that burns intensely when ignited. When detonated, thermite grenades produce molten iron from a violent reaction of the weapon’s thermite filler. Some thermite grenades have been known to burn at temperatures of nearly 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The extreme heat makes thermite grenades good for destroying weapons caches, bunkers and vehicles. Thermite grenades are capable of burning through an engine block in seconds.

Continue . . . http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/thermite.htm

The military has thermite grenades capable of burning through an engine block in seconds? That's weird.

Wonder why National Geographics and Myth Busters didn't ask Uncle Sam for a thermite grenade instead of going to all that trouble to prove thermite couldn't melt through steel? Maybe they didn't want to prove thermite could melt through steel?

Nano-thermite

Production
A method for producing nanoscale, or ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminium powders, a key component of most nano-thermitic materials, is the dynamic gas-phase condensation method, pioneered by Wayne Danen and Steve Son at Los Alamos National Laboratory. A variant of the method is being used at the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Another production method for nanoaluminium powder is the pulsed plasma process developed by NovaCentrix (formerly Nanotechnologies).[9] The powders made by both processes are indistinguishable.[10] A critical aspect of the production is the ability to produce particles of sizes in the tens of nanometer range, as well as with a limited distribution of particle sizes. In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.[3] Current production levels are now beyond 100 kg/month.

An application of the sol-gel method, developed by Randall Simpson, Alexander Gash and others at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, can be used to make the actual mixtures of nanostructured composite energetic materials. Depending on the process, MICs of different density can be produced. Highly porous and uniform products can be achieved by supercritical extraction.[3]

Ignition
Nanoscale composites are easier to ignite than traditional thermites. A nichrome bridgewire can be used in some cases. Other means of ignition can include flame or laser pulse. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is developing super-thermite electric matches that use comparatively low ignition currents and resist friction, impact, heat and static discharge.[1]

Continue . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Explosibility of nanoparticles

Looking at the third measure of likelihood of explosion occurrence, minimum ignition temperature, researchers have found that it decreases with decreasing particle size – thus increasing the likelihood of explosions with nanosized particles over larger particles.

For instance, nanosized aluminum has been found to ignite at a rather low ignition temperature of approximately 900 K, which is below aluminum's melting point, as a result of the oxidation of the aluminum. By comparing the ignition of thermites prepared with nano- and micrometer-sized particles, researchers found that micron powder ignited at 610°C, while the nanopowders already ignited at 100°C.

The fact that nanomaterials have different properties than their respective micrometer-sized counterparts – due to very high specific surface areas and high reactivities – results in lower ignition and melting temperatures and faster burning rates. For aluminum nanoparticles, these changes become more significant at a particle size less than 10 nm.

Continue . . . http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=24650.php

Nanoscale thermite is easier to ignite than regular old thermite? Maybe even with a flame? Like maybe the flame caused by burning jet fuel? That's weird.

What will they think of next?

 

I haven't implied any such thing. Nor do I suspect George W. Bush of being at the center of the plot, It's no secret that he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. IMHO if he played any role in the plot at all it would have been as a useful idiot and not a criminal mastermind. No offense meant to your hero Walyguy but the dude never gave any indication that he possessed the mental aptitude to play such a role.

One would assume so yes. One would also assume that the actual perpetrators could be revealed in a criminal investigation into the attacks of 9/11. But so far there hasn't been one. That's probably why we've been left to speculate about "who done it" for 14 years.

That does make one wonder why those at the highest levels of government were so adamantly opposed to any investigation at all doesn't it? By golly, I think you're starting to get the hang of this Walguy!

That's a good question but apparently you don't want that question answered unless it fits your paradigm. What other reason would you have for ruling out suspects before a real investigation has taken place?

As suspects. What's that saying the Bush administration and it's supporters became famous for during Bush's term in office? "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". If they had nothing to hide they would have been the first ones to call for a thorough independent well funded investigation instead of fighting tooth and nail to delay, under fund and hamper the 9/11 commission that even the chair people on that commission said was set up to fail from the beginning.

They wrote a book about it. Here's a review by the NYT . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/books/review/20Bamford.html

One has to wonder who's side you're on here. The victims and their loved ones who are still fighting with those in positions of power for the thorough independent well funded investigation those in positions of power have denied them for 14 years or those in positions of power?

Who's side are you on Walguy?

You're right all I have are the 11 characteristics of controlled demolition displayed in building 7. The evidence of destruction of a crime scene witnessed by the whole world. The evidence of a cover up by destruction of documents, the misleading statements made to the 9/11 commission by a host of people in positions of power, the refusal to take hundreds of eye witness testimonies into account, the outright refusal to hear or see any evidence that contradicts the official story, the concerted effort of the government and media to gag, demonize and or marginalize anyone that questions the official story or demand a thorough independent well funded investigation.

Not to mention the concrete solid incontrovertible facts that no one lost their job and some of those who did the worst job were promoted soon after 9/11.

In a sane world more interested in justice for the victims than protecting the careers and good name of those in positions of power and our own fragile world view that would be enough in and of itself to warrant a new thorough independent well funded investigation. But alas we don't live in such a world.

Note: Your rant that occupied this space was deleted as I see no reason to respond to the same personal attack more than once in a thread.

I'm glad you're glad.

I guess that just goes to show that maybe not everything you've heard about "truthers" is true. I do feel it needs to be said here that you don't seem to have any problem with protecting your own paradigm by rejecting evidence about 9/11 that isn't first government approved or corporate sponsored and embracing the "mainstreamer" tactics and arguments that seek to insult and ridicule your opponent into submission. But I guess there's a little insecure liberal in all of us that lashes out when our "safe space" is being threatened.

I appreciate the prayers and I agree that compassion does indeed sometimes call for some "tough love" like telling people the truth even though they might be unable psychologically to accept it. But there's always hope and that's why I'm going to keep you in my prayers also my friend.

Who knows maybe someday the Lord will fill your heart with as much zeal to seek justice for the millions of victims of the 9/11 attacks as you have for protecting the good name and reputation of people in positions of power.

 

Notice the absence of smoke at the bottom of the building in the second video? Also note in the second video the debris fall straight down instead of being violently ejected laterally (600 feet) as we see happening in the videos of WTC 1 and 2. Also note how the debris (concrete) isn't pulverized into fine dust but hit the ground in rather large chunks.

Molten steel? What molten steel?