Explosives Found In World Trade Center Dust

[Oneironaut Zero]

As a follow up to the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", a subsequent article - which I had just StumbledUpon - called "Explosives Found In World Trade Center Dust" claims to summarize the findings for the non-technical reader. I have to go to work soon, so I haven't yet been able to read through the material, but I thought I'd post it anyway, so that those who get a chance to read it before I do can offer their opinions on it.

[Xaqaria]

I'm not sure how it could be more conclusive than this. Does anyone know if there has been any official or political reaction to this paper?

[Black_Eagle]

Ironic how this guy dedicated a huge page to debunking the thermite theory and now we've got O's article saying they actually found thermite. Not just thermite, however. Super thermite. Seriously, how can it get more conclusive than this? I've been on the fence about 9/11 for a long time, but now I can't see how hard evidence like this can be refuted. I guess we'll find out.

[[SomeGuy]]

I honestly can't decide...so I'll quote South Park. Do you believe everything you're told, Kyle? Excuse me!! Could we get back to the issue, please?! You all don't seem to understand how serious this is!! Now who made dookie in the urinal?! [the boys just laugh] Oh, you think it's funny, huh?! M'kay! M'kay! You're gonna think it's real funny when the police get here!

[dajo]

What I am pretty sure of is that the official story is nothing more than a fairy tale. This is 'pretty big' so I'm not going to point fingers, but I very much would want a re-investigation. Thanks for the links!

[Universal Mind]

Maybe there possibly was thermitic dust discovered there, but I don't think I have any reason to believe it. I don't have reason to dismiss it with certainty either, but it still has not been proven. You can find internet articles saying anything. Who are the guys making the claims, and do they have anything to lose by lying? Do they have anything to gain? My skepticism remains. Also, let's say there were explosions. Then what was the point of the airplanes? Why not just blow up the buildings? Plus, why assume the goverment blew up the buildings? Why not Al Qaeda? I know politicians suck, but if I look at this from the perspective of a juror, there is not enough evidence for any convictions at this point. Reasonable doubt clearly remains.

[Bonsay]

Also, let's say there were explosions. Then what was the point of the airplanes? Why not just blow up the buildings? Plus, why assume the goverment blew up the buildings? Why not Al Qaeda? I don't really know how to answer the question why didn't they just blow it up but... If Al Quaeda blew it up, then why are there no explosives reported in the official 9/11 report? If the info on the link is true, there is a 9/11 conspiracy either way, with or without Al Quaeda.

[Psylocibin]

It's never been about truth anyway. It's about mass opinion, which can be fabricated.

[dajo]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270761

[Oneironaut Zero]

[This isn't as long as it looks. It's mostly just quotes. ] Maybe there possibly was thermitic dust discovered there, but I don't think I have any reason to believe it. I don't have reason to dismiss it with certainty either, but it still has not been proven. What reason do you have not to believe it? (I know that's basically what you said, but I wonder how much you believe the official story.) Believe me, I'm not 'pushing' for a conviction, but you can't let the deeply-personal nature of the accusation cloud your judgment. It works both ways, I know, but you have to admit, UM, that outside of the whole 'Al Qaeda is a bunch of shitfaced extremists' aspect, there is just too much about the official story that doesn't add up. Can you agree with me on that? I mean, not having enough evidence to believe it was an inside job is one thing, but can you acknowledge that there is at least enough evidence (and, yes, that means taking multiple facets of this, long-running conspiracy theory into serious consideration) to not expressly believe that it wasn't? Would your opinion be the equivalent of a 'not guilty' plea, or a hung jury? You can find internet articles saying anything. Who are the guys making the claims, and do they have anything to lose by lying? Do they have anything to gain? My skepticism remains. The people who submitted the findings are affiliates of the University of Copenhagen, in Denmark. Someone on http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/read.php?16,692981,693051,quote=1][/FONT]another forum provided some more information about them: Some observations about the production of this paper: 1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: [cmm.nbi.ku.dk] Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes. The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.” We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published. 2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. [www.physics.byu.edu] 3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper. 4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper. 5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 [www.bentham-open.org]... Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones The Environmentalist, August, 2008 [dx.doi.org] 6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! [911research.wtc7.net] 7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers. http://www.selectsmart.com/DISCUSS/r...693051,quote=1 As far as what they have to lose/gain by lying, we don't know that as of now, but that can't be too huge a catalyst for your skepticism. It's been stated, at length, what the US Government has to gain by lying (a lot), and you still seem to continue to dismiss the theories without a second thought. Also, let's say there were explosions. Then what was the point of the airplanes? Why not just blow up the buildings? Plus, why assume the goverment blew up the buildings? Why not Al Qaeda? What was the point of the airplanes? One word: Spectacle. For the alledged conspiracy to work, it had to be something the world could witness in horror. IF the elite class is, as many suspect, all about retaining power and control over the commonfolk (as it has been for centuries, in cultures all over the world) then the attack had to be incorporated into daily life to instill that level of fear. People aren't afraid of bombs. They aren't afraid of happening to be in a random building that gets blown up by an unseen explosive. They are afraid of a tangible enemy. They are afraid of just any Joe Muslim being able to hijack a plane with a box-cutter and fly it into a building. It is a horrific way to provoke antitrust. Why? For the purpose of giving our trust to the government, and sacraficing our freedoms for more 'security.' As Chancellor Sutler said in V for Vendetta: "Sutler: What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. I want this country to realize that we stand on the edge of oblivion. I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us! " also: "Sutler: My fellow Englishmen: tonight our country, that which we stand for, and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended... or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united. Those caught tonight in violation of curfew will be considered in league with our enemy and prosecuted as a terrorist without leniency or exception. Tonight, I give you my most solemn vow: that justice will be swift, it will be righteous, and it will be without mercy. " Or, as the Project for the New American Century States: "If we are going to transform America into tomorrow's dominant force, then it's going to be a long process, unless there is a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like Pearl Harbor." Reasonable doubt clearly remains. And rightfully so. Just be sure you don't dismiss or ignore the evidence that's out there. When it comes right down to it, you can't really look at this from the perspective of a juror, because you have a vested (and apparent) interest in this country. It would be almost on the scale of expecting a son to be an impartial juror, when his mother is on trial for massacre. Lmfao @ that article, btw, dajo.

[Black_Eagle]

Does anybody else think Osama Bin Laden is similar to the Emmanuel Goldstein character in 1984?

[RooJ]

Does anybody else think Osama Bin Laden is similar to the Emmanuel Goldstein character in 1984? Yeah heh, ive thought the same thing, maybe people should start calling Al Qaeda the brotherhood . Wasnt it Freud who said society needed an enemy figure for governments to have control?

[Psylocibin]

Yeah heh, ive thought the same thing, maybe people should start calling Al Qaeda the brotherhood . Wasnt it Freud who said society needed an enemy figure for governments to have control? "...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Nazi Reichmarshall Hermann Göring, at the Nürnberg War Trials. And who was listening at those trials? Don't know about Freud btw, I prefer Jung.

[Specialis Sapientia]

Well, this study is rejected by most Danish engineers on www.ing.dk The same chemical is used in some paint, and these thermites could come from a lot of stuff. Here, read. (google translated) http://translate.google.com/translat...er&sl=da&tl=en

[Oneironaut Zero]

Well, this study is rejected by most Danish engineers on www.ing.dk The same chemical is used in some paint, and these thermites could come from a lot of stuff. Here, read. (google translated) http://translate.google.com/translat...er&sl=da&tl=en Good to see an article that posts some criticism to it. How substantial the criticism is, though, is hard to say.

[Universal Mind]

What reason do you have not to believe it? (I know that's basically what you said, but I wonder how much you believe the official story.) Believe me, I'm not 'pushing' for a conviction, but you can't let the deeply-personal nature of the accusation cloud your judgment. It works both ways, I know, but you have to admit, UM, that outside of the whole 'Al Qaeda is a bunch of shitfaced extremists' aspect, there is just too much about the official story that doesn't add up. Can you agree with me on that? I mean, not having enough evidence to believe it was an inside job is one thing, but can you acknowledge that there is at least enough evidence (and, yes, that means taking multiple facets of this, long-running conspiracy theory into serious consideration) to not expressly believe that it wasn't? Would your opinion be the equivalent of a 'not guilty' plea, or a hung jury? The links you posted in this thread are the most convincing I have come across. I see more credibility in the conspiracy theory than ever before. But they also raise a million questions, such as the ones I asked. I don't doubt that the government is full of people evil enough to pull something so sick. It takes creatures who are below the level of roadkill to get really powerful in politics. There are just lots of other things that make the conspiracy claim seem really far fetched, but like I said, the reports from those guys who have high profile positions (something big to lose) do raise a red flag. However, if they write a book about the supposed findings, my eyes are really going to start rolling. Just remember that we are talking about supposed findings from very isolated people we had never heard of before, and we are dealing with the biggest news story of our lives so far and probably ever. News travels, and it seems like if there weren't holes in the story and a side we are not getting, the news would be enormous. I don't mean it would be on Fox News and CNN. I mean it would be the talk of every town and practically every thermite expert in the world. I think we are most likely not seeing the other side of the argument. The problem with these conspiracy theories is that the vast majority of the people who really know stuff think the conspiracy talk is so ridiculous they don't even publicly acknowledge it, so we rarely even come across the other sides of the arguments. How many high profile zoologists have spent time debunking claims of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster? Why didn't Steve Erwin ever write an article about it? [What was the point of the airplanes? One word: Spectacle. For the alledged conspiracy to work, it had to be something the world could witness in horror. IF the elite class is, as many suspect, all about retaining power and control over the commonfolk (as it has been for centuries, in cultures all over the world) then the attack had to be incorporated into daily life to instill that level of fear. People aren't afraid of bombs. They aren't afraid of happening to be in a random building that gets blown up by an unseen explosive. They are afraid of a tangible enemy. They are afraid of just any Joe Muslim being able to hijack a plane with a box-cutter and fly it into a building. It is a horrific way to provoke antitrust. Why? For the purpose of giving our trust to the government, and sacraficing our freedoms for more 'security.' Just blowing up the buildings would have been plenty of spectacle and horror. The idea that you can be in a building with thousands of people and the thing just suddenly crumbles to the ground is every bit as freaky as the airplane fright, at least for people who didn't already have a fear of flying. Israelis have that type of heebee geebeed deal with restaurants and buses. And rightfully so. Just be sure you don't dismiss or ignore the evidence that's out there. When it comes right down to it, you can't really look at this from the perspective of a juror, because you have a vested (and apparent) interest in this country. It would be almost on the scale of expecting a son to be an impartial juror, when his mother is on trial for massacre. As far as the analogy goes, there is enough evidence for questioning people, but not enough yet for a trial. I speak in those terms because I think it is the best way to be logical about it. Emotions can result in hostile false accusations. I don't want to get caught up in that. I believe in innocent until just about proven guilty, not innocent until raised eyebrow. Make sure you see where I said in my first post that I don't dismiss the stuff. I just have not swallowed the enormous pill yet. I don't really know how to answer the question why didn't they just blow it up but... If Al Quaeda blew it up, then why are there no explosives reported in the official 9/11 report? Maybe they weren't found initially because nobody was looking for them, if there really were explosives found. If the info on the link is true, there is a 9/11 conspiracy either way, with or without Al Quaeda. Most likely. But... Maybe it is left over from 1993? Maybe some asshole left it there after 9/11 as a hoax?

[Black_Eagle]

The links you posted in this thread are the most convincing I have come across. I see more credibility in the conspiracy theory than ever before. But they also raise a million questions, such as the ones I asked. I don't doubt that the government is full of people evil enough to pull something so sick. It takes creatures who are below the level of roadkill to get really powerful in politics. There are just lots of other things that make the conspiracy claim seem really far fetched, but like I said, the reports from those guys who have high profile positions (something big to lose) do raise a red flag. However, if they write a book about the supposed findings, my eyes are really going to start rolling. I'd like to believe that, but we've got the great lessons of Hitler and Stalin to look at. Just remember that we are talking about supposed findings from very isolated people we had never heard of before, and we are dealing with the biggest news story of our lives so far and probably ever. News travels, and it seems like if there weren't holes in the story and a side we are not getting, the news would be enormous. I don't mean it would be on Fox News and CNN. I mean it would be the talk of every town and practically every thermite expert in the world. I think we are most likely not seeing the other side of the argument. Maybe people dismiss this sort of thing as just another whackjob's conspiracy theory and don't give it another thought. Just blowing up the buildings would have been plenty of spectacle and horror. The idea that you can be in a building with thousands of people and the thing just suddenly crumbles to the ground is every bit as freaky as the airplane fright, at least for people who didn't already have a fear of flying. Israelis have that type of heebee geebeed deal with restaurants and buses. Not really considering it would happen over a short period of time and nobody would have time to record it. Drawing the situation out over a longer period of time and showing a bunch of live video feeds of the burning towers, the plane crashing into them, and the subsequent collapse would obviously make a larger impact on one's emotional state than a spontaneous brief explosion and collapse. Maybe they weren't found initially because nobody was looking for them, if there really were explosives found. The link Specialis posted describes how no explosives were found in the previous investigation. Most likely. But... Maybe it is left over from 1993? Maybe some asshole left it there after 9/11 as a hoax? That link Specialis posted addresses this: Research team notes in the report that the gray / red pieces can not become infected with nanotermit in the subsequent clean-up work: "It is worth emphasizing that one sample was collected approximately ten minutes after the second tower collapse, then the test can not possibly have been contaminated in the cleanup process," write the researchers reported.

[dajo]

Do you know this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...solved118.html In 2007 he said in an interview, that it is 'common knowledge' in the circles of secret agencys, that the 9/11 attacks were planned and execute by Mossad and the CIA to allow interventions in Afghanistan and Irak. (This is actuall stated in the german wikipedia article about him, not in the english version, though.)

[Universal Mind]

I'd like to believe that, but we've got the great lessons of Hitler and Stalin to look at. If you own a government and a nation, you can pull off things like a 9/11 conspiracy pretty easily. Maybe people dismiss this sort of thing as just another whackjob's conspiracy theory and don't give it another thought. They come across the claims and the arguments behind them. If 14 year olds on the internet can quickly learn about the 9/11 conspiracy arguments, the actual experts can too, and some inevitably will. Don't you think at least a few of them would? Imagine how that information would have spread in their circles. It would have become enormous by now, it seems. It reminds me of people who claim there are gurus who can levitate. Just think about how common knowledge that would be by now. Mind blowing information that is true and can be proven has a way of spreading everywhere. Not really considering it would happen over a short period of time and nobody would have time to record it. Drawing the situation out over a longer period of time and showing a bunch of live video feeds of the burning towers, the plane crashing into them, and the subsequent collapse would obviously make a larger impact on one's emotional state than a spontaneous brief explosion and collapse. Terrorists really did try to blow up the WTC in 1993. If one of the towers had come down because of an explosion, cameras would have focussed on the area big time. Then the second explosion would have been caught on tape. Visualize it. What used to be the tallest building in the world just goes BOOM!!!! and fire shows up at the base of it while the thing crumbles down. It would have been even more effective than just having it fall a while after an airplane hit it. By the way, who was flying those airplanes? The link Specialis posted describes how no explosives were found in the previous investigation. Were they looking for them? That link Specialis posted addresses this: The supposed ten minutes is enough time for a prankster, and terrorists could have left the stuff there so people would go to the internet and make conspiracy claims against the U.S. government. Still... Like I said, I am not completely dismissing the conspiracy claims. I am just showing that they have not been proven. A lot of it reminds me of holy rollers saying stuff like, "What caused the big bang and the evolution of frog lungs and that face on that cliff? A ha! God is real!"

[Xaqaria]

I would say the prime reason for the planes was plausibility, not spectacle. Terrorists can hijack planes. Planes might be able to bring down the buildings. It is a lot easier to convince the public that we were attacked by a relatively small group of evil men who were able to take control of planes and crash them into tall buildings than it is to convince us that a handful of bad guys were able to rig both giant towers with thousands of pounds of explosives in the exact configuration that would both take down the buildings and pancake them into their own footprints without anyone realizing. It is a lot easier to rationalize the plane story than it would be to rationalize a bombing of this magnitude.

[Phydeaux_3]

As a follow up to the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", a subsequent article - which I had just StumbledUpon - called "Explosives Found In World Trade Center Dust" claims to summarize the findings for the non-technical reader. I have to go to work soon, so I haven't yet been able to read through the material, but I thought I'd post it anyway, so that those who get a chance to read it before I do can offer their opinions on it. I so believe in all of this stuff. I'm a Zeitgeister so it's easy for me to accept this stuff as truth. When you step back an look at the evidence subjectively it's not only improbable that the towers fell from what the Bush administration told us but totally and completely impossible. This, imho, is the worst crime perpetuated against humanity in the history of our civilization. Rotten bastards. Imagine what kharma is going to do to them? Ouch. I still hear that line over and over in my head from Zeitgeist: "You still think some guy in a cave got past NORAD?! Some guy in a CAVE?!"

[Black_Eagle]

If you own a government and a nation, you can pull off things like a 9/11 conspiracy pretty easily. But he still had all the people around him who were convinced that their actions were right. Is it possible that if it really was a conspiracy by our government that the people truly did believe what they were doing was right? They come across the claims and the arguments behind them. If 14 year olds on the internet can quickly learn about the 9/11 conspiracy arguments, the actual experts can too, and some inevitably will. Don't you think at least a few of them would? Imagine how that information would have spread in their circles. It would have become enormous by now, it seems. It reminds me of people who claim there are gurus who can levitate. Just think about how common knowledge that would be by now. Mind blowing information that is true and can be proven has a way of spreading everywhere. True, perhaps I'll have to try and dig something up. I tried showing some people this link, but they dismissed it. Terrorists really did try to blow up the WTC in 1993. If one of the towers had come down because of an explosion, cameras would have focussed on the area big time. Then the second explosion would have been caught on tape. Visualize it. What used to be the tallest building in the world just goes BOOM!!!! and fire shows up at the base of it while the thing crumbles down. It would have been even more effective than just having it fall a while after an airplane hit it. By the way, who was flying those airplanes? If it was a government conspiracy, they would not have blown it up by placing the bombs at the base like terrorists would. This is because the tower would either not fall down fully or it would tip over and cause quite a bit of collateral damage. If they used a controlled explosion without any sort of distraction or spectacle, it would be blatantly obvious that the destruction was not the work of terrorists. It makes sense that they would fly a plane into the buildings to, as Xaqaria said, add plausibility. Were they looking for them? This little line of words which seems to lean toward the official explanation says yes and includes sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...iracy_theories The supposed ten minutes is enough time for a prankster, and terrorists could have left the stuff there so people would go to the internet and make conspiracy claims against the U.S. government. Still... Like I said, I am not completely dismissing the conspiracy claims. I am just showing that they have not been proven. A lot of it reminds me of holy rollers saying stuff like, "What caused the big bang and the evolution of frog lungs and that face on that cliff? A ha! God is real!" A prankster? More like UM playing devil's advocate. I don't think that's plausible for some random guy to have super thermite dust in his possession let alone get the idea to spread some in the WTC ruins ten minutes after the collapse with all that dust flying around. A terrorist with the premeditated intention to spread super thermite dust? Since they supposedly didn't find any in the official investigation, I'd rule this out. I'm also on the fence about the 911 conspiracy. Obviously I lean more against the official explanation. There's just too many inconsistencies. The perfect WTC 7 collapse, molten steel dripping out the side of the tower, this thermite story.

[Xei]

Hmm. The towers did fall down 8 years ago now... how long did these guys need for a basic chemical test? To be honest it's just another web page, and at the end of the day there's not really any reason I should believe one web page over another, anybody could've written them. My feelings on this issue are just to use common sense... I can't really think of any unconvoluted reason why the US government would want to do that; alongside many other holes.

[Universal Mind]

But he still had all the people around him who were convinced that their actions were right. Is it possible that if it really was a conspiracy by our government that the people truly did believe what they were doing was right? I highly doubt it. What would have been seen as right about it? True, perhaps I'll have to try and dig something up. I tried showing some people this link, but they dismissed it. The arguments for the conspiracy don't take that long to make. I think they are dismissed because they do not add up in expert minds. If it was a government conspiracy, they would not have blown it up by placing the bombs at the base like terrorists would. This is because the tower would either not fall down fully or it would tip over and cause quite a bit of collateral damage. If they used a controlled explosion without any sort of distraction or spectacle, it would be blatantly obvious that the destruction was not the work of terrorists. It makes sense that they would fly a plane into the buildings to, as Xaqaria said, add plausibility. The towers did fall down fully, so what do you mean? Whoever did it obviously did not give a damn about collateral damage, aside from seeking lots of it. Terrorists tried to blow up the buildings in 1993. The idea that terrorists were behind explosions would have been completely plausible. Who was flying those airplanes? This little line of words which seems to lean toward the official explanation says yes and includes sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...iracy_theories So that says, while another much more obscure article says thermite was found. If I automatically believed all of that, I would be as gullible as somebody who sends half his income to a television evangelist. A prankster? More like UM playing devil's advocate. I don't think that's plausible for some random guy to have super thermite dust in his possession let alone get the idea to spread some in the WTC ruins ten minutes after the collapse with all that dust flying around. A terrorist with the premeditated intention to spread super thermite dust? Since they supposedly didn't find any in the official investigation, I'd rule this out. The prankster bit was an illustration of how I think you are jumping to getting realed in way too easily. There is a lot to think about, and my what ifs are just the surface. I doubt a prankster did that within ten minutes, but it is one of many considerations in what I think is a major leap to conclusions. It is really the links in the original post that have my skepticism sky high. Think of all of the off the wall claims you have come across in internet articles. I don't even trust that the guys are who they say they are. I came across some dude on Youtube who claims he is Kiss drummer Peter Criss. When I found it, I posted three questions on his page to test him. They just sat there for more than a year without any response, and only like three people posted after I did. What if that guy's page said Gene Simmons orchestrated 9/11 afer a Kiss concert in 1977? Would you believe it? I'm also on the fence about the 911 conspiracy. Obviously I lean more against the official explanation. There's just too many inconsistencies. The perfect WTC 7 collapse, molten steel dripping out the side of the tower, this thermite story. All of that has been explained by experts, the few who see this stuff as something with any more credibility than claims that the Loch Ness Monster pokes his head out for Scotland tourists. They say that WTC 7 collapsed like a perfectly demolished building but that it also collapsed like a building in the situation it was in with the other buildings. A duck has a bill, but that does not make it a sparrow. The steel is said to not have been molten. It was just softened enough for the buildings to collapse. The thermite story might have ended up in a wrestling magazine if the internet had not been invented. Please take a stab at who might possibly have been flying those airplanes.

[Xaqaria]

UM, since no one has taken a stab at answering your question about who was flying the airplanes, I'll give it a shot. It was most likely america hating terrorists flying the planes. The CIA could have hired them posing as members of some terrorist organization, I'm fairly certain they have done similar things in the past, although I couldn't find any sources in my five minute search. Maybe I'll look a bit harder when I get home from work. In this scenario, the people who hijacked the planes and crashed them into the buildings would have thought they were striking a blow without knowing that our government hired them. The other less likely option is that the planes were unmanned and were following a pre-programmed flight path. This would be possible with the equipment on the planes, and whoever had been flying them could have easily parachuted out, but this scenario would require the cooperation of the airlines, as well as anyone who is currently claiming to be a family member of one of the alleged passengers. I tend to look for possibilities that have the least number of conspirators, so I would say the first option is much more likely. It would keep the potential conspirators completely inside the government, and wouldn't even require the actual hijackers to really know what they were doing. A third option would be that a terrorist group planned and orchestrated an attack on the world trade center that involved flying planes in to buildings and the government learned of the plot in time to add their own twist to it.