Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosive

Dr. Caleb:

Howdee again after a little absence from Vive. :oops:

Refering to the "OCCAM razor principle" to discard the inside job theory does not add up IMO. Because the converse to explain what happens get far more complicated. Read on.

Cause I don't think a whole lot of people had to be involved to do the *final* job in summer 2001 (with regular staff on holiday and Silverstein "taking over") under the cover of this "anti-terrorist" 15M$ job undertaken in 1998, fire "retardants", "extinguishers" and likes.

Replacing fire extinguishers already strategically located in the vicinity of the loadbearing beams by actual triggering devices does not look that difficult when done under "scheduled maintenance" or a late "Engineering Change Notice" (ECN). "Plug-compatible", we call them. Hehe. Would you really think that security would have verified these new fire "extinguisher" supplies showing up in shipping? A pallet held in supplier shipping docks is very easy to change.

Also applying this active thermite tar (&its concealment) earlier on does not look that difficult either if accesses to these locations had been enabled beforehand to fight these damn terrorists. :wink:

Ditto for the fire "retardant" material pallet.

Security agents would only have seen paperwork and "follow-on work" to the retrofitting of the building to "protect" against terrorists. The people that actually did the labor job could very well have been minimum wage job vulnerable foreign workers, not having one clue about what they were doing then. Would however most likely have understood what they were actually doing *after* what happened on 9/11. I doubt very much that they are still alive today.

The technology to do controlled demolitions was afterall *very well* understood (including this active thermite material available to "Defense" & "counter-terrorist" agencies while studying these terrorists). And the money was there (along with these insurance premiums carrots). Is it really that unlikely that Silverstein would have had the controlled-demolition "feature" built in his last upgrade, considering the problems they have had with these buildings? The Kean commission certainly did not go anywhere close to WTC7.

Discounting Hoffman as "as qualified as the "cookie monster" because he was a "software engineer" to write this paper looks a little weak. You surely must have enough experience dealing with large bureaucracies to understand that Hoffman had his own share to understand how simple it would be to cover up the con job. I certainly have had my own... A healthy dose of jaded cynicism should help. You have certainly demonstrated plenty on Vive in the past and am most surprised that 9/11 (WTC7) explainations does not bother you the slightest. I am actually prepared to account for everything else on 9/11 as "shit happened" but *NOT* on WTC7.

So I would like to see on the building plan (verified independently) the actual location of these fire "extinguisher" devices shown in overlay with the beam structure? I would like to know exactly what fire "extinguisher" and "retardant" measures were applied in the vicinity of the beams, by who in theory, and who in practice. And what happened to these people? I also would like to see the engineering contractor supervising this work answering to some pointed design review questions. Finally, I would ask Silverstein under oath if controlled demolitions measures had been put in place for "raining days" in the process of retrofitting WTC7 for "fighting terror". Then the light might go on then! There is no need whatsoever in this scenario to couple the hijackers attack to the demolition of WTC7.

As far as warning us against the evils of the conspiracy industry, Alex Jones and other nuts, I would counterwarn against the evils of Silverstein having benefitted from a rather nice insurance preamiums, something like 10**6 more than what Jones&Co. can dream of. Let's Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), will you?

In ending Dr. Caleb, please read again Vonnegut Custodians of chaos on PP personalities. Silverstein fits right in there. That is my view anyway on the "OCCAM razor principle" applied to 9/11. Now if you want to call me conehead, go for it! :wink:

Good comments Gaulois, thanks for the Vonnegut link.

David Chandler, high school physics teacher, forced NIST to include free fall of WTC 7 in their final report, here is what happened and what it means.
Part I

Part II

Part III

Chandler sums it up here.

Hoffman put together a plan for demolition to show one way it could have been done in a short period of time.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Thanks Milton. I gather NIST did not do very well at all explaining what happened to WTC7. Might just as well not even have tried. What an embarassment indeed. Dr Caleb: are you still with us? :wink:

I was wondering where is the latest iteration of Hoffman's paper. I suspect he has cracked the case by now.

Dr. C.: I am now freefalling over your impossible logic and links, i.e. 9.8 m/sec**2. Would never had thought of conspiring against changing that one, modelling it better and getting it paid to do so. Can't wait for the movie now. [popcorn]

My only focus on 9/11 is WTC7 freefalling for most of the frames at 9.8m/sec**2. The rest is noise IMO. Are you denying that it felled at that rate for most of the fall???

I always look at your links DC. I wish you would.

The crime took place on September 11, 2001. The terrorists refused to investigate what happened that day and then allowed the destruction of the crime scene. They confiscated all the videos and photos they could that were taken that day and made it a crime to take photos of the disposal of the evidence. They televised their cover story repeatedly and their corporate press lapdog was uncritical.

I, as well as others working independently, started grabbing all the videos and reports of what happened at that time. Eventually a group of us got together and worked with Paul Thompson on The Terror Timelinehttp://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project. One of the thoughts the team had was that the terrorists who planned and executed the event would bungle the propaganda cover up and if we grabbed everything that we could we would have the proof of what they did.

It is very hard to reason with intellectually competent people when they refuse to consider evidence for themselves. But democracy is not a spectator sport and after a while silence becomes betrayal.

So lets look at some of the photos I posted

the above photo shows the south tower top leaning to the left in the photo and at the bottom right of the photo there are flames visible through the smoke and dust caused by the explosions. A symmetrical collapse scenario is now ruled out because all the weight has shifted to one side of the building. Then something not so funny happens, the angular momentum of the top section disappears and there is no mechanism to account for it other than the bottom up destruction of the section. If you look at the videos that DC supplied you will see the top section exploding outward. What is the mechanism which causes the top section to explode and hurl beams horizontally away from the remainder of the building? Where is all this flame coming from. According to the official theories there have been intense fires burning which consumed enough fuel to have the heat necessary to melt steel or at least cause it to become elastic. The fires may have consumed all the fuel available to them because there is black smoke billowing from the tower and this indicates a low temperature fire.

One can see from this photo, and the following three, that the dust cloud explosion is approximately the same size on side the tower is tipping away from as on the side it is tipping towards. Why are beams being hurled from the side of the building that the top is tipping away from?

Look at all the beams being flung horizontally away from the building, what was the mechanism that broke their welds? Notice the arc of material being hurled vertically and horizontally away from the building at the top of the dust zone.

DC says that the top topples off the building and lands in the street below, one can see no evidence that the top exists at the time of the above photo.