[Newsbot]

Title: Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives
Topic: U.S. Politics
Written By: Milton
Date: Saturday, April 11 at 15:58

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009
Introduction
The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.
By 2003 the United States had occupations of two countries, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principal alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.
read more

[coyoteman]

I have heard these discussions around what really happened on 911 for a very long time now, of course. One cannot be seriously political, and especially of a left skewered view, and participating in the discussions that have gone on since then, without having been made aware.

For myself, I admit, I tend to act as if I accept the "official" version is the one and only "true version". That said, beneath this thin veneer that tends to cede some credence, my suspicions are nonetheless deeply aroused, by especially some of the respected "professional" engineering and architectural group critics of this official view. And as the burning of the Reichstag by the Nazis event demonstrate,in the events leading to their rise and the Second Great War, blaming it on the German Communists, the system's fascists are certainly not above such egregious deceptions to manipulate public sentiment. (To say nothing of the sinking of the Lusitania during the First War, and the suspicions of British deception around that, as well as numerous other suspicious events across history, against the backdrop of the class struggle, revolution, and the determination of history's ruling classes to retain dominant power within society and over the economy. In short, when it comes to the ruling class interest, they are capable of anything... any deception or infamy. And not to overlook how long it took to get US Air Force interceptors into the air either, to counter the reputed Al Qaeda attack, or the airliner "the terrorists" flew into the Pentagon, without any actual trace of the plane ever being found after.)

So I certainly do not rule out ANY of the critic theories around what actually occurred on 911, and would not be surprised by anything. I cannot forget, for example, that look on Bush's face when he was in that school classroom, and an aide came in to whisper into his ear what had happened at the Towers. It was the strangest and not in the least appropriate look on his face that one could imagine for such an occasion.

So, no, I really do not buy the "official" explanations for 911... not in the goddamn least, even though I may not be privy to the exact "official" behaviours. This is a piece of meat that is green with the smell of rot coming off it. There is more going on here than meets the eye, even if I may not be entirely certain of the details. It has the same tainted nose test bouquet to it as the WMD Saddam was supposed to have possessed, which was used to justify the US Empire invasion of Iraq, after turning aside their invasion of Afghanistan, in pursuit of Al Qaeda, who was supposed to have done the 911 dirty deed. That they lie, like Powell at the UN and Bush everytime he opened his mouth, is already a proven fact apparent to everyone.

The US is on a world conquest quest, and they will do anything, tell any lie, resort to any deception and kill even thousands of their own citizens, if necessary, to pull it off.

They really are, as they are accused, The Great Satan of our time.

Coyote

[Fiatlux]

There was no way an inner core, made of 47 huge welded and bolted vertical beams, then reinforced with concrete, could have been collapsed by vertical pressure and break into small pieces. Iron beams my twist, but not break. The towers could have toppled over if their bottom had been cut, but even then the beams wouldn't have broken into small pieces.

I have seen a large number of buildings destroyed by wartime bombing, but even there the structural steel may have been twisted, but not broken. It was the most interesting how many brick chimneys were sticking up from the ruins, practically intact. The same happened to many ancient, thousand years old forts, where the walls have crumbled, but the chimneys still stand.

Ed Deak.

[Dr Caleb]

Ahhh, I so love when the 'thermite' argument comes out. Every 3 months or so, I would guess.

So, let me first introduce :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Which will shape a readers thoughts from here on. Those who 'believe' will interpret me as they already 'believe'. Those who are willing to debate, will see the truth in the argument.



This is usually the photo that the 'thermite' crowd usually points to as the standard for their belief system. It is of course, not given any sort of context. It was taken about 4 weeks after the tower collapse. They are told the angular cut in the centre of the picture is indicative of 'thermite', as it the slag covering the steel. Anyone who has done any welding will know differently. The 'flat' topped steel beams, being impossible to do with 'thermite' are ignored.

Taking in the full photo, we see some clown standing there with what looks like a thermal lance in the background.



What could he be doing?? Well, a couple weeks earlier he and guys like him were removing the twisted wreckage of the main support columns with cutting torches.




Occams' Razor- the simplest explanation is probably correct. So, which is simpler - a few guys managed to plant tons of a chemical substance that is very unreliable in it's operation in crowded buldings and lively offices without anyone noticing - or; you were given a sequence of photographs out of order and out of context and now you think they mean something completely untrue?

Remember, this conspiracy was supposedly carried out by a government that, in the most secure room in the entire world, couldn't keep one blow job secret.

But, don't believe me! How about guys who do demolitions for a living?

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf

Now, go back and re-read the link on 'Confirmation Bias'. Case closed. You can continue on with your life and move past what happened 8 years ago.

At least for another 3 months till Alex Jones and the guys at WTC7.com need more ad revenue for their sites.

[Milton]

Your mind has been totally closed for eight years. Try looking at the evidence that is presented in the article instead of selecting photos which you mix up chronologically and then pontificate on as though you have shown something relevant to us. Please refute the evidence that Jim has gone to great lengths to present.

Your argument that the government can't keep a secret and therefore this proves that 911 was not planned and carried out by members of the government of the US as well as other agents is a testament to your inability to get the blinders off long enough to pay attention to what is happening now. Why throw Alex Jones into the mix? The site is WTC7.net not WTC7.com. Open your eyes Doc.

[Dr Caleb]

Milton Milton:

Please refute the evidence that Jim has gone to great lengths to present.

I've done that 100 times. I don't have to prove the contrary every time someone claims the sky is falling. The burden is not on me to prove anything. However, many people have done just that.

Wallboard Gypsum is high content Sulfur, iron comes from many different sources, chemicals such as potassium and calcium come from concrete.

It's like him saying sodium in sea water proves Noah's Arc existed. Until they find the actual chemical signature of Thermite, it's a dead end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do

It doesn't matter how much new evidence he comes up with, his custody of the evidence will always be suspect. Have a look at the Implosion world link as to why thermite theories are the dumbest thing ever.

Then perhaps Mr. Hoffman can find me evidence of someone dumb enough to use and then evidence of someone planting thermite. Perhaps martyrdom videos of the suicide welders in the basements?

I have presented photographic evidence of people actually cutting the twisted steel beams at the WTC using common methods. Do you, Mr Jones or Mr Hoffman have photographic evidence of someone planting thermite at the WTC buildings?

[Milton]

You didn't look at the evidence. If you had you would know that Jim Hoffman had nothing to do with the studies which showed that "Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives" were present in dust recovered in various locations adjacent to the WTC site. Your chain of custody of evidence is a ridiculous statement to make in face of the fact that those who were in custody of the steel evidence took it under armed guard to Shanghai steel mills just as fast as they could load it. The rest of the evidence, including human remains, went to various landfills. Criminals covering up their tracks.

Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives are not the same as standard thermite or thermate.

Lets not forget that the firefighters, EMT's and building residents testimony, that there were many explosions going off all over the buildings before the demolitions took place, was not taken by the 911 commission. When they did take testimony , as in the case of William Rodriguez, they didn't publish all his answers.

The only 911 evidence of conspiracy arguments that you have refuted are the ones that you constructed yourself or read about in some tinfoil lala land publication like Popular Mechanics or The 911 Commission Report or some government sponsored internet disinfo site.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that 200,000 pound steel beams are not hurled four to five hundred feet horizontally in a gravity fed collapse.

While we are at it, show us the photos of the 20 story pile of concrete that would have been there if a collapse had taken place like the 911 Commission Report conspiracy theory says happened.

You keep throwing Alex Jones into the argument, forget him, refute Steven Jones latest co-authored paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
By Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Niels H. Harrit, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen". It has been peer reviewed, perhaps you like to critique the review too?

Good comments Ed and coyoteman, thanks for the input.

[Dr Caleb]

Milton Milton:

You didn't look at the evidence.

I did. Which is why it too me 3 days to respond.

Milton Milton:

If you had you would know that Jim Hoffman had nothing to do with the studies which showed that "Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives" were present in dust recovered in various locations adjacent to the WTC site.

Good, because Jim Hoffman is a software engineer. He's about as qualified to do that as is the Cookie Monster.

Milton Milton:

Your chain of custody of evidence is a ridiculous statement to make in face of the fact that those who were in custody of the steel evidence took it under armed guard to Shanghai steel mills just as fast as they could load it. The rest of the evidence, including human remains, went to various landfills. Criminals covering up their tracks.

Custody of evidence is everything. If the source can't be believed, then neither can the evidence.

Milton Milton:

Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives are not the same as standard thermite or thermate.

Well, only in that "Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives" exists only in the context of this article. Google it. It's the 4th hit -> Vive. They even added the words 'nano' and 'explosive' to make it sound scarier. "Thermate" is supposedly 'Thermite' with added sulphur. So, basically we are talking 'Thermite' yes.

Milton Milton:

Lets not forget that the firefighters, EMT's and building residents testimony, that there were many explosions going off all over the buildings before the demolitions took place, was not taken by the 911 commission. When they did take testimony , as in the case of William Rodriguez, they didn't publish all his answers.

All been discussed and/or debunked before.

Milton Milton:

The only 911 evidence of conspiracy arguments that you have refuted are the ones that you constructed yourself or read about in some tinfoil lala land publication like Popular Mechanics or The 911 Commission Report or some government sponsored internet disinfo site.

"Confirmation Bias"

Milton Milton:

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that 200,000 pound steel beams are not hurled four to five hundred feet horizontally in a gravity fed collapse.

Apparently, you do have to be a rocket scientist. Because 100 tons of steel would require the energy of a massive explosion to move. Or a 110 story building falling down.

One of these, we have video of.

Milton Milton:

While we are at it, show us the photos of the 20 story pile of concrete that would have been there if a collapse had taken place like the 911 Commission Report conspiracy theory says happened.

0:

manhattan_after_rotated.jpg [ 1.83 MiB | Viewed 178 times ]

And the 911 commission report says no such thing.

Milton Milton:

You keep throwing Alex Jones into the argument, forget him, refute Steven Jones latest co-authored paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Why do I need to do that? To satisfy the 'sky is falling' crowd? I put forward my conditions.

Milton Milton:

By Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Niels H. Harrit, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen". It has been peer reviewed, perhaps you like to critique the review too?

Peers, such as the software engineer above? What about the peer review from the demolitions experts, since you claim this to be a demolition?

[Dr Caleb]

Milton Milton:

You keep throwing Alex Jones into the argument, forget him, refute Steven Jones latest co-authored paper, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Stephen Jones Stephen Jones:

As usual, we search for possible prosaic explanations for these metallic spherules in the WTC dust. The most obvious possible source is the melting of large quantities of steel in the buildings followed somehow by formation of tiny droplets of molten steel. As discussed above, however, steel melts at about 1538ºC (2800ºF) – and the temperatures in the buildings were no where near [sic] hot enough to melt steel, and certainly not in large quantities required for the amounts seen in the dust (and pouring out of the South Tower before collapse). Furthermore, we have looked at the chemical compositions of a number of iron-rich spherules as well as that of steel, and the compositions are not the same at all. It should not be surprising, however, as we analyze more spherules to find some that are steel-like in composition, assuming that thermite cutter-charges were in fact used to cut through steel. We should then find both steel- and thermite-residue spherules.

Could these droplets be due to molten aluminum alloy (from the jets) striking rusty steel and/or other office materials to somehow generate the iron-rich spheres? We performed experiments with molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel, then onto crushed gypsum and concrete (on the rusty steel) – and observed no formation of iron-rich droplets at all nor any sign of vigorous chemical reactions.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... on_spheres

Like, cutting torches perhaps? I mean, seriously.

[Milton]

$1:

Good, because Jim Hoffman is a software engineer. He's about as qualified to do that as is the Cookie Monster

You say you looked at the evidence and then you have the gall to make the above statement.

$1:

All been discussed and/or debunked before.

You said this in relation to the ignored testimony of eye witnesses such as fire fighters, EMT's, WTC employees and resident company employees. By whom has it been discussed and/or debunked?

$1:

And the 911 commission report says no such thing.

This statement you make in regard to the top down pile driver collapse scenario proffered by the 911 Commission, you say they didn't give this as the driving force of the collapse. What caused the collapse then, super kerosene?

$1:

Peers, such as the software engineer above? What about the peer review from the demolitions experts, since you claim this to be a demolition?

You haven't looked at the evidence presented in the article or you are agenda driven.

$1:

Like, cutting torches perhaps? I mean, seriously.

You did read far enough into the study to see that they did take alternate methods of thermite formation into account because you quoted them and then you dissembled in your usual style. You left this part out which immediately followed the part you quoted.
"After addressing arguments that the iron-rich droplets could have been produced by the rubble pile or clean-up operation -- the dust samples were collected too early and were too distant from the site to have been thusly contaminated -- Jones makes a rough estimate of the total quantities of reactants involved in the attack based on the fraction of the dust comprising the iron-rich spheres.

One can estimate the implied amount of thermite needed to generate so many iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust. In a sample of 32.1 grams of WTC dust, I observed with the unaided eye two metallic-looking spheres, in addition to the micron-sized spherules collected using a magnet. The mm-size spheres proved to be iron-aluminum rich. The mass of these two larger spheres (0.012g) found in this sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012g/32.1g = 0.04%. If the mass of the WTC dust was about 30,000 tons, then the iron-rich spherule content would be of the order of ten tons. This is a very rough estimate based on one small sample, and is only provided to give an idea of the amount of thermite-type reactants and products which may be involved here. An investigation well beyond the scope of this paper would look for purchases of aluminum and iron-oxide powders (and sulfur) in multi-ton-quantities prior to 9/11/2001."

I have to go to work, I apologize to one and all for not having the time to elucidate this subject properly at present.

Let me add this though, there was no proper investigation carried out in a timely fashion after September 11, 2001. Custody of the bulk of the evidence was in the hands of the mayor of New York and he, although being a lawyer and knowing full well that what he was about to order done was a criminal act, ordered the evidence disposed of.

[Dr Caleb]

Milton Milton:

$1:

Good, because Jim Hoffman is a software engineer. He's about as qualified to do that as is the Cookie Monster

You say you looked at the evidence and then you have the gall to make the above statement.

It's in his own biography. Did I read it wrong?

Milton Milton:

$1:

All been discussed and/or debunked before.

You said this in relation to the ignored testimony of eye witnesses such as fire fighters, EMT's, WTC employees and resident company employees. By whom has it been discussed and/or debunked?

http://www.canadaka.net/forums/us-polit ... 21142.html

180 pages of beauty. Parry, thrust, p0wnage! Most of it from actual demolitions experts and architectural engineers. People who do this sort of stuff professionally.

Milton Milton:

$1:

And the 911 commission report says no such thing.

This statement you make in regard to the top down pile driver collapse scenario proffered by the 911 Commission, you say they didn't give this as the driving force of the collapse. What caused the collapse then, super kerosene?

You said: "While we are at it, show us the photos of the 20 story pile of concrete that would have been there if a collapse had taken place like the 911 Commission Report conspiracy theory says happened."

The 911 commission did not say there would be a 20 story pile of concrete. We've discussed this before, you and I Milton. Concrete pulverizes, especially concrete under load, and video of a building coming down will show you this. Hence, the large attached satellite photo of Manhattan, showing all the pulverized concrete. Or did everyone assume the huge clouds of debris meant the cleaning staff was useless?

Milton Milton:

$1:

Peers, such as the software engineer above? What about the peer review from the demolitions experts, since you claim this to be a demolition?

You haven't looked at the evidence presented in the article or you are agenda driven.

Agenda? You've known me Milton, for what, 6? 7 years? My only agenda is 'truth'.

Milton Milton:

$1:

Like, cutting torches perhaps? I mean, seriously.

You did read far enough into the study to see that they did take alternate methods of thermite formation into account because you quoted them and then you dissembled in your usual style. You left this part out which immediately followed the part you quoted.

I left it out, because it has gone so far from reality already that by the time they turn around and come back, they will be out of fuel.

Their chain of evidence is contaminated. It's useless. Even if they find residue of C4 and actual det cord and GWBs fingerprint, no one can trust the samples.

The only way to prove now that these towers were brought down using any sort of demolitions techniques is to provide people who can verify that actually happened. They have to show little inconstancies like; if thermite was used, why didn't the impact of the planes set the thermite off? How did they, for the first time in history, manage to get mutiple samples of thermite to ignite at the same time? Why didn't the impact of the planes, and the burning for an hour also burn through the fuses to light off the thermite? I could go on for hours, and with Rearguard, I did!

viewtopic.php?t=61650

Little inconstancies that make it impossible to believe any sort of 'new' evidence, short of an actual conspirator. It's all built on easily explained events, that no one wants to believe the explanations for. Add in more 'evidence' to the already huge body of bullshit makes no difference to my views.

Milton Milton:

I have to go to work, I apologize to one and all for not having the time to elucidate this subject properly at present.

Let me add this though, there was no proper investigation carried out in a timely fashion after September 11, 2001. Custody of the bulk of the evidence was in the hands of the mayor of New York and he, although being a lawyer and knowing full well that what he was about to order done was a criminal act, ordered the evidence disposed of.

No worries.

I ignore most stuff in these threads, not only because of time constraints, but because I have been posting the same damn rebuttals for years; and apparently I have been wasting my time. No one is concerned with reality, they would rather believe that the impossible is true. After years of this, I know it's human nature to believe in the impossible in the face of a huge tragedy, rather than face the fact that reality is more complicated and also more simple than we give it credit for.

[Milton]

You have your blinders firmly in place or you are agenda driven Doc. Some people become desperate when faced with a truth which has so many evil implications, sometimes they act like drowning people, flailing around and clutching at anything, they panic.

I offer a few photos for your perusal, sort of a reality check test. Let us see if you are able to discern reality from the agenda driven bullshit analysis of what happened on Sept 11, 2001, portrayed in the NIST report and The 911 Commission Report.



These photos show the start of the collapse of the South Tower, the first one shows the top 20 stories leaning at a 23 degree angle, then the demolition starts and the top which should have continued to fall off the building disappears into the demolition dust and never reappears. This is a test of your cognitive ability, are you agenda driven or are you searching for the truth. What can we deduce from these photos?


What can we deduce from this photo?


This photo is from the FEMA Report



"This photograph was taken about seven seconds after the top of the South Tower began its precipitous fall. The top had begun to lean to the left, then fell into the exploding cloud of dust. By the time the top disappeared, most of it had cleared the intact portion of the tower. However it never emerged from the dust cloud."
The arrow is pointing to a squib. The center top of this photo shows something important as does the bottom right side across from the flag and the middle right side of the explosion zone.


I will leave off at this point because I have to go to work.

[Dr Caleb]

Milton Milton:

You have your blinders firmly in place or you are agenda driven Doc. Some people become desperate when faced with a truth which has so many evil implications, sometimes they act like drowning people, flailing around and clutching at anything, they panic.

That's funny. Sorry if I don't fit into one of your little boxes Milton.

I see reality. In my seeing reality, I see how far you have strayed from it. I don't actually care about this subject, I do care the effect it has on you and others. You can't always live in fear.

Milton Milton:

I offer a few photos for your perusal, sort of a reality check test. Let us see if you are able to discern reality from the agenda driven bullshit analysis of what happened on Sept 11, 2001, portrayed in the NIST report and The 911 Commission Report.

Confirmation Bias. As I said, someone has taken photos of one thing, and told you it represents something else. Watching the whole video with unbiased eyes changes everything, instead of just a few frames.

Milton Milton:

These photos show the start of the collapse of the South Tower, the first one shows the top 20 stories leaning at a 23 degree angle, then the demolition starts and the top which should have continued to fall off the building disappears into the demolition dust and never reappears. This is a test of your cognitive ability, are you agenda driven or are you searching for the truth. What can we deduce from these photos?

These photos show the start of the collapse of the South Tower, the first one shows the top 20 stories leaning at a 23 degree angle, then gravity takes over and the building disappears into the concrete dust, except for the top of the towers antenna which destroy the building across the street. This is a test of your cognitive ability, can you be taken in by easy slight of hand, or are you willing to think on your own?

If the buildings came down in their own footprint because of controlled demolition (ignoring the whodunnit aspect for now) why were buildings so far away damaged, rendered uninhabitable or just plain flattened by falling debris?

1:

sw.all.jpg [ 167.65 KiB | Viewed 616 times ]

We all know an object in motion remains in motion. So, how does the top of a building which is falling, suddenly shift direction? It doesn't. Now, look at your photo of the 23 degree tilt, and compare it to my picture showing damage. Why is the building across the street severely damaged, if the tower fell straight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk

0:

9_16_pic05_edit.jpg [ 114.9 KiB | Viewed 173 times ]

Milton Milton:

What can we deduce from this photo?

This photo is from the FEMA Report

And?

Milton Milton:

"This photograph was taken about seven seconds after the top of the South Tower began its precipitous fall. The top had begun to lean to the left, then fell into the exploding cloud of dust. By the time the top disappeared, most of it had cleared the intact portion of the tower. However it never emerged from the dust cloud."
The arrow is pointing to a squib. The center top of this photo shows something important as does the bottom right side across from the flag and the middle right side of the explosion zone.

Ahh, see, right there. 'Squib'. You are simply parroting what someone else has told you, and they were wrong.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

If these are 'squibs' ie: the residue from an explosion; why do they increase over time, rather than have a sudden impulse then decrease - as you would expect with an explosion?

Milton Milton:

I will leave off at this point because I have to go to work.

You really aught to read those links I gave. And this one:

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

There will be a test next time.

[Fiatlux]

The fact that this "debunking" site keeps on and on referring to "conspiracy theorists" makes it a suspect to begin with, as it is a well known propaganda expression to divert attention to the gang taking over the world. E.g, the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals, etc. etc. and the money markets for the purpose of keeping countries enslaved with the artificial manipulation of monetary values changing the dimensions of trade goods.

The word "conspiracy" originates with the Latin "cum spero" or "breathing together" to make decisions. Which means that all political parties,clubs, corporations, etc. are conspiracies, shown in the NAFTA, WTO, TILMA etc. all designed to set up corporate dictatorships.

The inner core of those towers consisted of 47 huge vertical beams, welded, bolted together and encased in concrete forming a cage.

Vertical beams can not and do not collapse vertically and break into small pieces. It is a physical impossibility. Never have, even after WW2 bombing, or peacetime fires and never will, because it is a physical impossibility. Especially at freefall speed.

There was no fire to melt any structural steel. The planes carry their fuel in the wings, which broke up on impact, spreading the fuel all over, in tiny drops, exploding into fireballs, but do not collect into pools. Even if there were pools of fuel, kerosene fire can not melt steel. Try it.

The fire captain on the scene radiod down, a few minutes before they were all killed,
that the fires were no problem. There are many pictures showing people standing in the openings cut by the planes.

There were no independent investigations of the wreckage permitted and all the steel, in small pieces, was sent to China in virtual secret.

The reports of lengthy cellphone messages from the planes were lies, now admitted even by the FBI. Couldn't be done.

The crash of even small planes brings on sometimes years of investigations. There were none, involving 4 large airliners. This alone is suspect.

The hole in the Pentagon walls is far too small for an airliner and experienced captains, who flew the same plane admitted that they couldn't have flown it into that building with such accuracy, let alone by an inexperienced amateur. No wreckage.

The hole in the field in Pennsylvania, again, had no wreckage of a large plane.

The list goes on and on, with thousands of unanswered questions.

WW 2 was started by a junior SS officer, Alfred Naujocks, whose troop, dressed in Polish uniforms, attacked a German radio station at Danzig, now Gdansk, as an act of provocation to give Hitler an excuse to attack Poland.

In short, the whole affair stinks to high heaven and anybody who believes the official version must be dreaming. This applies to just about any government, or big business communications anywhere on Earth. They all lie their teeth out, especially for the ideological justification of planned crimes.

Ed Deak.

[Milton]

Very good observations and analysis Ed, thanks for that .
I'll give DC a day to comment on your comments and then I will go over what he missed in the photos I posted as well as the photos he posted.