9/11 CT Facts and Myth links

[SydneyPSIder]

Just on the OP, I note there has been a follow-up study on nanothermite/thermate/thermite etc which finds that the dust samples are a paint layer. I've had a quick glance over the study, and a quick glance over the original nanothermite dust investigation study in the past. It would be necessary to re-evaluate both of them closely. e.g. in the original study, applying heat to the paint chips resulted in a major visible exothermic reaction, caught on video (which is presumably legit). This would not happen with paint, as every building would then be much like the Hindenberg waiting to go off. This is a major weakness of the 'debunking' study which conveniently makes no reference to the exothermic potential of the chips.

However, the 'spray-on nanothermite' argument has never been one to me that was required to explain the extraordinary collapse of steel framed skyscrapers in a low temperature fire -- other demolition methods could easily have been used. Conventional thermite-based cutting devices may have been the first step, followed by timed C-4 plastic charges to blow out the joints and demolish the building. I don't actually see where a nanothermite spray coating is even required for such a demolition, although if such a thing was found, it would imply '19 Saudi Arabian terrorists' could not have gained the necessary access to apply such a coating and adds more incredulity to the official account.

There are way too many other points that stretch credulity in the official account to make all the problems go away, however -- patsy 'airline pilots' unable to even fly a single-engined Cessna, claims in the official story that don't fit the data, and so on. Same applies to Madrid, 7/7 and 21/7. All false flag operations and frame-ups on the evidence.

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[Scepcop]

[Arouet]

You missed my point, which is that your opinions are not relevant to assessing the opinions of the people who post on your site.

[ProfWag]