News

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 78235 10-29-2012 05:38 AM

1) Prove what can create the same iron rich micro spheres that USGS and RJ Lee sorted out and which thermite so far is the only explaination of.

2) Show us what paint or other substance contains these "explosive" iron micro spheres-creating chips.

We know there was a crew of people working on the towers days before the events of 9/11, could they have concocted a primer laced with nano-thermite? Is such a concoction possible? Well, if such a thing is possible then you have a lead and quite possibility a window to a new investigation.

If not then for 11 years you've been racking your brains over nothing more than paint mixed with miscellaneous office materials.

Kooks? Or revolutionaries, you decide.

**LoP Guest** lop guest User ID: 78235 10-29-2012 05:38 AM

f*ck.

9/11*

**David** · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2012 05:43 AM by David.)

WTC 7

Collapsed straight down into its own footprint.

That is the smoking gun.

Buildings just don't collapse totally symmetrically like that without pre-placed demolitions which take weeks to set up.

(Of course, steel buildings had never collapsed from fire before, and steel does not melt at the temperatures at which jet fuel burns in air.)

The only way the building could have collapsed that way is from professional demolitions.

The rest of the story is mere details.

Now go fill in those details.

**David**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

**David**

WTC Owner, Larry Silverstein "Pull it"

On 911 by his own admission.

"Pull it" is common terminology in demolitions, meaning, "demolish the building."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsXdBlv2yvg

**1N5URGENT**

From http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493

Quote:This is a response to the discussion carried out by many suggesting that the planes at the WTC couldn't have brought the buildings down. I'm sorry for being so forward, but in my opinion this is a ridiculous discussion. I am a junior at an engineering-exclusive school studying materials engineering. I admit that I am not an "expert" on the subject. However, I do know enough to explain this situation. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. I don't have a strong opinion on the conspiracy theory, but when people say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel it bothers me. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is quite possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. Sorry, I’m done ranting.

**David**

1N5URGENT Wrote:

From http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493

Quote:This is a response to the discussion carried out by many suggesting that the planes at the WTC couldn't have brought the buildings down. I'm sorry for being so forward, but in my opinion this is a ridiculous discussion. I am a junior at an engineering-exclusive school studying materials engineering. I admit that I am not an "expert" on the subject. However, I do know enough to explain this situation. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. I don't have a strong opinion on the conspiracy theory, but when people say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel it bothers me. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is quite possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. Sorry, I’m done ranting.

No plane hit WTC 7.

No jet fuel.

Your source can not explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Sorry, I'm not done being logical.

**1N5URGENT**

David Wrote:

No plane hit WTC 7.

No jet fuel.

Your source can not explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Sorry, I'm not done being logical.

It took one minute to collapse. I don't know if that means it couldn't have been explosives or what. About 9/11, I just don't know....

**Vegas** · **Vegas** Crisis Actor User ID: 102345 10-29-2012 06:39 AM **Posts: 18,611**

**David**

1N5URGENT Wrote:

David Wrote:
No plane hit WTC 7.

No jet fuel.

Your source can not explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Sorry, I'm not done being logical.

It took one minute to collapse. I don't know if that means it couldn't have been explosives or what. About 9/11, I just don't know....

Less than 9 seconds

Watch the video again.

I don't know where you are getting your supposed facts.

You are an non-American 911 debunker.

Israeli much?

What is your nationality?

**David**

Vegas Wrote:

Apparently the shills won't leave that poor dead horse alone.

**1N5URGENT**

David Wrote:

Less than 9 seconds

Watch the video again.

I don't know where you are getting your supposed facts.

You are an non-American 911 debunker.

Israeli much?

What is your nationality?

I am not obligated to tell you, but I can tell you that it is not Israel.

Okay, a little less than one minute according to Wikipedia

Quote: At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.

So if I so much as doubt a theory, I'm Israeli? That's not very nice.

**David**

1N5URGENT Wrote:

David Wrote:
Less than 9 seconds

Watch the video again.

I don't know where you are getting your supposed facts.

You are an non-American 911 debunker.

Israeli much?

What is your nationality?

I am not obligated to tell you, but I can tell you that it is not Israel.

Okay, a little less than one minute according to Wikipedia

Quote: At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.

So if I so much as doubt a theory, I'm Israeli? That's not very nice.

Well, I hadn't necessarily meant it as an insult per se.

I have had many friends that were Israeli.

And we would probably disagree a great deal about present Israeli government policy.

Wikipedia, as you can see with your own eyes is wrong.

But who are you gonna believe? Wikipedia or your lying eyes.

**1N5URGENT**

David Wrote:

Well, I hadn't necessarily meant it as an insult per se.

I have had many friends that were Israeli.

And we would probably disagree a great deal about present Israeli government policy.

Wikipedia, as you can see with your own eyes is wrong.

But who are you gonna believe? Wikipedia or your lying eyes.

Yeah, you're right about the source...I checked the original source that Wiki got it from and it was a deleted FEMA pamphlet.

Lmao

I think Israel is a horrible country by the way.

**David**

1N5URGENT Wrote:

David Wrote:
Well, I hadn't necessarily meant it as an insult per se.

I have had many friends that were Israeli.

And we would probably disagree a great deal about present Israeli government policy.

Wikipedia, as you can see with your own eyes is wrong.

But who are you gonna believe? Wikipedia or your lying eyes.

Yeah, you're right about the source...I checked the original source that Wiki got it from and it was a deleted FEMA pamphlet.

I think Israel is a horrible country by the way.

It's good and bad. It has some horrible "leaders" at the moment -- as does the U.S.

It's about time for that to change.