Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I think 'nuclear' explosives is taking things a bit too far, don't you? I think if you stick with 'regular' explosives your story will seem that much more plausible.

Depends on how you want to take out the central columns. The US has small demolition nuclear charges that would account for the extreme heat and melted steel found weeks later at the site.
As well as seismic shocks and elevated Tritium levels.

W54
Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. developed lightweight nuclear devices to use in the interest of U.S. national security. The Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) was a Navy and Marines project that was demonstrated as feasible in the mid-to-late 1960s, but was never used. The project, which involved a small nuclear weapon, was designed to allow one individual to parachute from any type of aircraft carrying the weapon package that would be placed in a harbor or other strategic location that could be accessed from the sea. Another parachutist without a weapon package would follow the first parachutist to provide support as needed. The two-man team would place the weapon package in an acceptable location, set the timer, and swim out into the ocean where they would be retrieved by a submarine or other high-speed water craft. The parachute jumps and the retrieval procedures were practiced extensively. While the procedures were practiced extensively, SADM was never used. These types of weapons are no longer in the stockpile.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb

Mike - Please do some research for yourself.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/americas_phoney_wars.html

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Depends on how you want to take out the central columns. The US has small demolition nuclear charges that would account for the extreme heat and melted steel found weeks later at the site.

Mike - Please do some research for yourself.

But don't you think that if they wanted to be "quiet" about it they'd choose something other than nuclear charges?

you don't think it took me research to find out where the carriers were and why in the days before the attack?

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

But don't you think that if they wanted to be "quiet" about it they'd choose something other than nuclear charges?

I wouldn't have done it in the first place !

It's all just a theory to account for observable facts.

If the US want to hold a real inquiry into the facts and prove me wrong then I'll be first in line to thank them.

It's YOUR administration that doesn't want this investigated !

Quote from flymike91 :

you don't think it took me research to find out where the carriers were and why in the days before the attack?

Heard of 'enigma' or 'ultra' Mike ?

Theoretically, you don't need mini-nukes. Thermite charges would do it.

Theoretically.

Quote from Hankstar :

Theoretically, you don't need mini-nukes. Thermite charges would do it.

Theoretically.

So would a plane.

I know - useless statement - but I stand by my 'theory.'

Quote from Hankstar :

Theoretically, you don't need mini-nukes. Thermite charges would do it.

Theoretically.

Yes it's possible to bring them down with this, but thermate wouldn't give the temperatures that were measured at ground zero a week later.
Or the seismic recordings PRIOR to the buildings falling. ( which were recorded as separate smaller shocks )

Mind you, neither will friction ........

In my opinion they used both, SADM's to take out the central pillars at a low level and thermate to cut the trusses as in a controlled demolition.
Again, look at the way they fell.
The centre went first, there's video on the net of WTC 2 showing the aerial, supported by the central pillars, falling first.
And falling straight, it was used as a flag pole after the event.

Remember that NIST have ruled out the pancake theory in the official report .......
( Strangely not reported ......... )

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.

Apparently the EPA have been accused of covering up the true health risks during the rescue and clean up operations of 'Ground Zero'. So it does seem as though something odd was going on.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/environment.html

It's been really tricky to find any info on the net linking this stuff with 9/11. But i guess they were prepared to risk using large quantities of this dihydrexi-whatsit to mask something more sinister, maybe thermite ?.

I guess it's easier to explain away something that can already be found in our environment (albeit in relatively small quantities) than something that would stick out like a sore thumb. And i suppose the fact that dihydrogen monoxide is already in our atmosphere no one's putting to much effort into finding out why so much of it was used at ground zero. It is a fire retardant after all...got me thinking this has...

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Hmmm, this is getting interesting.
...got me thinking this has...

All I have been asking people to do

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

So would a plane.

I know - useless statement - but I stand by my 'theory.'

Thermite isn't my theory, it's just a theory.

Thermite's a plausible theory in my opinion (I've seen footage of the stuff in action - don't spill it on yourself ok?), but really no more or less plausible than many other theories that have done the rounds. It really just begs more questions too: if it was there, how did it get there; who put it there; who was involved & what the hell were they thinking? etc. Don't really want to go down that road tbh, certainly not without evidence.

But, unfortunately, every theory - official, plausible, foil-hat or otherwise - will unfortunately have to remain just a theory, thanks to the inexplicable, baffling removal & destruction of millions of tons of physical evidence from the biggest crime scene in US history. That is my problem with the official story. Whether I agree with it is irrelevant - it just seems that there's no way at all to ever confirm or disprove it. For someone even slightly scientifically minded that's really, really frustrating. For someone with plenty of reasons (eight years' worth) to distrust the Bush administration it's definitely something (else) that needs to be investigated thoroughly. For someone who's a flat-out paranoid I guess would practically be an admission of guilt. For the record, I only fall into the first two categories.

Quote from Hankstar :

But, unfortunately, every theory - official, plausible, foil-hat or otherwise - will unfortunately have to remain just a theory, thanks to the inexplicable, baffling removal & destruction of millions of tons of physical evidence from the biggest crime scene in US history. That is my problem with the official story.

What made me immediately suspicious of the whole thing was the news report the following day that they'd found one of the hijackers passports lying around in Manhattan. Couldn't find 3000 corpses but they found an intact paper document that had earlier been smack in the middle of an inferno that apparently melted steel. :rolleyes:

I don't think any of the alternative theories deserve any credence purely because they are entirely speculative, but at the same time I don't buy the official story either. None of it.

Quote from Hankstar :

That is my problem with the official story. Whether I agree with it is irrelevant - it just seems that there's no way at all to ever confirm or disprove it. For someone even slightly scientifically minded that's really, really frustrating. For someone with plenty of reasons (eight years' worth) to distrust the Bush administration it's definitely something (else) that needs to be investigated thoroughly. For someone who's a flat-out paranoid I guess would practically be an admission of guilt. For the record, I only fall into the first two categories.

Arthur Dent: You know, this explains a lot. Because all my life, I've had this unaccountable feeling in my bones that something sinister was happening in the universe and that no one would tell me what it was.
Slartibartfast: Oh, no. That's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe has that.

Kurt Cobain: just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you.

Hrundi V. Bakshi: Birdy num num.

Quote from xaotik :

Hrundi V. Bakshi: Birdy num num.

Georges life model !

Syd Barrett: I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like, it's got a basket, a bell that rings and things to make it look good. I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it.

Balki Bartokomous: Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!

Ted Crilly: These are small...

Quote from xaotik :

Balki Bartokomous: Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!

:ices_rofl

Quote from Mazz4200 :

What about the Moon Landings...

Why didn't they ever repeted that, surely the technology got more advancier since '69..

Quote from thisnameistaken :

What made me immediately suspicious of the whole thing was the news report the following day that they'd found one of the hijackers passports lying around in Manhattan. Couldn't find 3000 corpses but they found an intact paper document that had earlier been smack in the middle of an inferno that apparently melted steel. :rolleyes:

No, that's not suspicious at all, how dare you question the official story, you wierdo...

Quote from Boris Lozac :

Why didn't they ever repeted that, surely the technology got more advancier since '69..

Technology is light years ahead of where it was then. How is it that they did in one year, what NASA expects to be able to re-create in 20? The answer comes down to funding.

Remember that 40 years ago NASA had a practically infinite budget with which to research/build/test/execute all phases of the lunar missions. Today, partly because of the war, partly because of Bush, and partly because of Americans' stupid views that space exploration and NASA are a waste of money and do nothing to benefit mankind, NASA has to make due with a budget that really isn't going to get us anywhere very fast.

If you recall, a few weeks ago, there was an uprising in the scientific community when NASA claimed that they would be leaving one of the Mars rovers out to dry in order to put the money towards newer projects. It is amazing that NASA has to abandon equipment that is FUNNY FUNCTIONAL on another planet just to be able to fund other endeavors.

It is sad that NASA has become what it is. The 60s and 70s were the glory years for that organization. People actually cared about space exploration, NASA could afford to build amazing spacecraft and perform amazing thought-to-be-impossible feats of engineering. It's sad that the only operational spacecraft today is the space shuttle, which is only still in use because it is the only piece of equipment we have to complete the construction of the space station. The reality is that it is old, outdated and dangerous and will be retired as soon as construction of the ISS is complete. The shuttle is kind of like my car. Very old, falling apart, but unfortunately the only thing I have to get me from point A to B, so until I can afford a new car, I'll be stuck driving this one... no matter how many problems it develops.

The towers fell because two planes crashed into them.

I've spent over a year looking into all angles on 9/11. There is the most convincing documentary just come out made by architects and engineers in America called 'How the Towers fell' see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3118021782753292874 which covers all the ground necessary for the twin towers collapse to convince any open and clear minded person that we have all been sold a complete lie.

Another good documentary coming out this weekend is called 'Elephant in the room' again (all beit from a completely different angle) is definately worth seeing, although it's not available yet on the internet. We all need to work together - believe me..

Quote from smokinggun :

I've spent over a year looking into all angles on 9/11.

Personally researching it or reading half-baked ideas on the web and saying "ooh" sometimes?

And you don't do your credibility any favours by registering a demo account purely for the purposes of posting this link.