University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

Because the government was smart enough to pull off 911 but stupid enough to make it look like the truthers imainged controlled demo to give the truth away. Making more work to buy off people to do you imagined falsifying of reports. Reports in black in white everyone would scrutinized? Makes lots of sense for the government smart enough to pull off 911?

So it's impossible and improbable a building fell because it received structural damage from two buildings twice building 7 size falling in close proximity with uncontrolled fuel fites burning for hours? It never happen before? Glad the wright brothers didn't use your logic. (Or did they get the know how from aliens?) No person ever flew with powered flight, why bother. Must be impossible. Do you ever stop and listen to yourself?

Why go to the trouble of using demolitions? Why not plant and replace a few structural components with "preexisting" flaws that would make them susceptible to failure during a fire?

a reply to: sg1642

Who would run a story and commit professional suicide? That's what it would be without concrete proof.

So you admit there is no proof of a conspiracy ?

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The mainstream media is just a propaganda machine. Owned by the elite. Probably 70 % believe it was an inside job.

70% Really ?
Trump doesn't even have 70% and he's all over the media.

Do you really believe all the worlds media is controlled by the elite ?
What about Wikileaks ? No conspiracy from them.

So in your minds eye every news journalist past and present are squashing the conspiracy.
All these college students who are upset about which bathroom they can use are towing the government line on this conspiracy. You don't know human nature very well.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642

Who would run a story and commit professional suicide? That's what it would be without concrete proof.

So you admit there is no proof of a conspiracy ?

There is evidence not proof.

a reply to: sg1642

There is evidence not proof.

Suspicion not proof.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: sg1642

There is evidence not proof.

Suspicion not proof.

Evidence. Perhaps in your opinion there isn't but that's where we can agree to disagree.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

No. diesel burns no hotter than office fires and diesel is almost impossible to ignite. He looked into it. No way. Wouldn't cause a global collapse without demolition. Their is 0 examples of a global collapse (steel frame building) without demolition in history. No one can produce and example. Doesn't exist.

Diesel impossible to ignite...?? Thats news to me - ever see a truck on fire after an accident ? Or even just on fire ?

Have to bring that up to the chief next time..... "Yo chief, somethings wrong here..?? That diesel fuel should not
be burning like that..."

Another strike for the doc. Ever think to Google steel frame building collapse? Never is a big statement?

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: sg1642

Just to play the role of Devil's Advocate and Semantic Pedantic, it clearly WAS a conspiracy, as 2 people or more planned to do what was done.

Yes, it was a conspiracy. The only question is just who the conspirators actually were...?

originally posted by: neutronflux
Another strike for the doc. Ever think to Google steel frame building collapse? Never is a big statement?

www.debunking911.com...

You think a building falling over is the same as a global foot print collapse. LOL

The educated professor agrees with me. That site is a joke. It might fool a few fools nothing more. No examples yet. Doctor 100%.

I'm going with thermite has never been used in the controlled demolition of an intacted skyscraper, so it must be impossible. And as other people have pointed out, if fire is no danger.to a steel structure, why do fire codes require structural steel to be insulted? Must be a conspiracy? Set up for 911?

originally posted by: neutronflux
I'm going with thermite has never been used in the controlled demolition of an intacted skyscraper, so it must be impossible. And as other people have pointed out, if fire is no danger.to a steel structure, why do fire codes require structural steel to be insulted? Must be a conspiracy? Set up for 911?

It has been used to bring down steel structures that were somewhere near 700ft.

a reply to: sg1642

Name one that was not just a bare frame. When was it last use. How many times has it been used. Name when it was used to drop a building floor by floor?

It's never been used to drop an intacte skyscraper. Nor a build floor by floor into its own footprint. I'm I wrong? So by doc's logic, it's impossible to use thermite on the controlled demo of an intact skyscraper into its own footprint.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642

Name one that was not just a bare frame. When was it last use. How many times has it been used. Name when it was used to drop a building floor by floor?

It's never been used to drop an intacte skyscraper. Nor a build floor by floor into its own footprint. I'm I wrong? So by doc's logic, it's impossible to use thermite on the controlled demo of an intact skyscraper into its own footprint.

No you are perfectly correct and I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm just pointing out that it's not impossible and has been used in demolition before.

a reply to: sg1642

Sry, should have been nicer. I get tired the controlled demo persons argue a office fire never caused a steel frame building to collapse. I would see their point if it wasn't for three facts. One, the design of the twin towers. Two, the towers were already damaged from large jets strikes with speeds from 400 to 500 mph. Three, building 7 was damaged from two buildings twice it's size falling near by. It just seems so weird to say it's impossible jets hitting the building would start the process of their collapse. I guess that's never their statement. It's always a building fire? It's the same as saying the failure of steel due to hydrogen crack propagation is impossible. It's improbable but catastrophic under the right conditions.

One of the things I've learned, once an electric breaker is damaged or deranged, its not safe. Not predictable. I would think it be the same with a building hit by jets and on fire?

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: sg1642

Name one that was not just a bare frame. When was it last use. How many times has it been used. Name when it was used to drop a building floor by floor?

It's never been used to drop an intacte skyscraper. Nor a build floor by floor into its own footprint. I'm I wrong? So by doc's logic, it's impossible to use thermite on the controlled demo of an intact skyscraper into its own footprint.

No you are perfectly correct and I'm not in disagreement with you. I'm just pointing out that it's not impossible and has been used in demolition before.

Now that he mentions it, they did find an advanced form of thermite in all multiple dust samples tested. Probably some military advanced form of themite. Military known to have used for underwater demolition.

MUST SEE Professor Steven Jones on the Controlled Demolition Of WTC Demolition

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Who is they and what independent labs varified it. How do you time relitive slow and unprodicatable burning of thermite to burn in procise timing to drop floors in a building not weakened by fire of collateral damage? Remember, so presice it would fall into its own footprint. And show its possible by naming an intacted 100 story building demolished by the use of thermite. Not possible because its never been done. It's your logic doc.

a reply to: neutronflux

If you don't know what a peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal is, I can't help you.

It could be an explosive form of nano thermite. It had a much larger spike in the calorimeter than known military nano thermite. Perfect for getting past bomb sniffing dogs wouldn't you think?