Since so many eyewitnesses heard boms/explosions, why would the NIST be so adament...

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 11, 2016.

  1. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    about NOT testing for explosives?

    I should not have to post all these eyewitness accounts. Please do your own research before responding.

    Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST had a predetermined agenda. They tried everything they possibly could to come up with theories that might explain the collapse of the 3 towers due to a hypothetical natural result strictly caused by damage and/or fire. A true investigation uses universally accepted and/or mandated protocols/guidelines. NIST followed nothing legitimate even though NIST was intimately involved in creating NFPA fire investigation standards and publishes them. Those standards include forensically investigating for explosions, explosives and exotic accelerants in a terrorist attack with high order damage. NIST's mandate was to investigate, not concoct theories designed to support a predetermined agenda. A lot of what NIST did is detailed in this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you ever hear a transformer or boiler explode? ...
     
  4. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you? Never mind as I would not believe you anyways. That said, the NIST certainly should have tested for explosives. There were weay too many people who have been on record about that. They are even audible on many news broadcasts.
     
  5. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,256
    Likes Received:
    9,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    loud bang, doesn't neccessarily mean a bomb or explosives.

    FAIL

    secondly, now you don't think it wasn't thermite anymore?

    now it was bombs?

    when will 9-11 Truth make up their minds?

    LOL!!!!
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have heard many things explode ... transformers, hand grenades, mortars, an incinerator, 500 lb bombs, a propane tank on an RV ... they all sound like explosions ...

    so people heard explosions ... and? ...
     
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BEcause there is no evidence of explosives.

    WHen buildings catch fire things burst or explode it is normal and not evidence of something nefarious.
     
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    83,256
    Likes Received:
    9,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    first thermite, now explosives.

    which is it?
     
  9. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sam should have said nano thermite, not thermite. For those unfamiliar with nano thermite, here is an excerpt from the wikipedia entry on the subject:
    **Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. Because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far greater.[2]

    MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s.[3] Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives.[4] Nanoenergetic materials can store more energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy. Thermobaric weapons are one potential application of nanoenergetic materials.[5]
    **

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

    A paper was published on the Open Chemical Physics Journal concerning evidence of Nano thermite being discovered in the WTC dust:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/active...the-9-11-world-trade-center-catastrophe/13049

    As has been mentioned, NIST never bothered to check for explosives, but they were quick to denounce these findings, even as they continued to stick their own investigatory head in the sand by refusing to test for nano thermite themselves:
    **The Incendiary “Super” Thermite

    Most NIST critics cite as the most devastating potential evidence of explosives the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist who was forced to retire from his tenured professorship at Brigham Young University in Utah after he wrote a highly critical analysis of the NIST twin towers report that was severely rebuked by BYU”s own building engineering department as mistake-ridden because it was outside Jones area of expertise. Based on the article, however, four New Yorkers sent Jones what they claimed was WTC dust for testing. Jones and two other scientists, using BYU’s superb electronic microscope lab, then analyzed and, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, reported and showed photographs last April of what they said was clear evidence of nano-thermite, otherwise known as super thermite, in the dust. Super thermite easily cuts through steel and is used by the military.

    After Jones informed NIST of his findings and invited a dialogue, NIST countered that there was no “clear chain of custody” proving that the dust indeed came un-tampered from Ground Zero. Jones then invited NIST to conduct its own studies using its own known “chain of custody” dust. NIST has refused to take up the challenge.
    **

    Source: http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/elements-great-scientific-and-technical-dispute/
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And let's not forget 2 things about NIST.

    1. NFPA protocol requires that they forensically analyze the evidence for exotic accelerants in any terrorist attack with high order damage. NIST failed to do that.
    2. NIST was very familiar with nanothermite.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
     
  11. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No he shouldn't have (lol) and he never mentioned thermite. I have not even begun explaining what actually happened that day. I have just been showing that the official version is impossible.

    When I start explaining what actually happened you will become very familiar with nano-thermite. But, first things first lol.
     
  12. Margot2

    Margot2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    71,326
    Likes Received:
    12,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you, shine..........
     
  13. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will make a mental note of checking if what Ron is saying actually corresponds to what is in the OP next time -.-

    Alright :)
     
  14. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good points. Also a lot of destroyed evidence at ground zero, as well as at other events of 9/11... http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html , http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/evidence.html
     
  15. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, have you? Regardless, even FEMA admitted that the boiler exploding had only a "low probability of occurrence", and I believe NIST makes no mention of the boiler exploding, chalking the collapse up to fires alone:
    NIST Concludes "Fire" Caused WTC 7 “Collapse” when FEMA Report Concluded Fuel Tank Explosion had "low probability” | 911Blogger.com

    There is also a witness with expertise in boilers who has since died under what I believe are suspicious circumstances named Barry Jennings. Here's what he had to say about the boiler explosion theory:
    **I am just confused about one thing and one thing only - why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I am very confused about that. I know what I heard - I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel oil tank. I am an old boiler guy - if it was a fuel oil tank then it would have been one side of the building. When I got to that lobby the lobby was totally destroyed - it looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it - it was so destroyed I didn't know where I was.**

    Source: The Collapse of WTC 7 and the Mysterious Death of Barry Jennings
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't know whether a boiler exploded or not ... I am just specualting on whether people who hear explosions actually know what an explosion is ... a fuel tank and a boiler is not the same thing so I don't know why you're quote mattters ...

    things tend to explode during fires ...
     
  17. phoenyx

    phoenyx New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are the same on that one. What Barry Jennings was saying, though, is that, based on his knowledge of boilers, the devastation in the lobby was not caused by a fuel oil tank.

    Barry Jennings didn't just hear explosions- he saw the effects of explosions. It would, ofcourse, have been great to be able to ask him how he was so sure that the fuel tank couldn't have caused the damage, but ofcourse that's no longer possible since he's dead. Based on the way Barry mentioned both being a boiler guy and diesel fuel tanks in the same sentence, my guess is that the fuel tanks would be where the boiler got its fuel and the component in the boiler room that would have exploded.

    Some things, yes. The important thing, though, is to recognize that while some things may explode in fires, nothing short of explosives has ever taken down steel framed buildings before or after 9/11. Even -with- explosives, they don't always get the job done:
    [video=youtube;LJDX9V_pPV8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8[/video]

    Getting a building to essentially completely collapse into its own footprint is very hard work. For it to happen simply due to some fires and a fuel tank explosion appears to be extremely unlikely if not impossible.
     
  18. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,492
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    same reason they ignored and harrassed through intimidation every witness in the JFK assassination afterwards who gave a version of events of facts that did not go along with their version of events and covered up evidence,because it did not go along with their version of the story they had to give to the public.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,833
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes you should.

    Been done before and your premise is false

    - - - Updated - - -

    The truthers have no coherent theory they have literally thousands of assertions without any supporting evidence
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
  22. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure there is, it's in print and in many videos and articles. The majority of it is right here for your denying eyes:

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    The rest of the OCT consists of all the other official US government statements and all the classified material unavailable to the public, which is a lie by omission.

    Eyewitness claims are not always reliable but they are also not always unreliable and could very well be factual, especially when they independently corroborate each other. You are not the judge of which eyewitness claims are factual and which are not. Many corroborative eyewitness claims contradict the OCT and much of it is deliberately omitted from the OCT.

    Yes some do, especially the official government ones (as history proves), others expose reality.
     
  24. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,882
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simple answer ... ever heard when steel beams crack?

    And if someone comes with this lousy BS of termite etc. ... this is still well refused to be irrelevant too. In short ... about this half book of bla bla bla about as so called evidence, they back on founded agent of Brome that. Well ... with what were these tens of thousands steel beams again painted? A reddish-brown anti rust color and one major content of this color is again what? Brome! If you don't believe, go to next store and read content of the color. :roll:
     
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No there is no OCT because it is not a conspiracy theory at all it is a proven evidence based explanation and conclusion of what happened.

    Withholding classified information is not a lie by omission sorry but that is a lie from you.

    No eyewitnesses contradict the official proven explanation and that is absolute fact you cannot provide one such witness.

    The government reports state fact is it your you tubers and twoofers telling the proven fictional story.

    I know you wish to create an image that you are more enlightened and informed because you think you see what others cannot but in fact you have it backwards. You are repeating proven fairy tales and you are extremely gullible
     

Share This Page