nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

Now, if all of this is known and verifiable, how is it that this 'inside job' remained such a secret? This is the US Government and MOST of us know that NOBODY in that body can keep a damned secret.

Plenty of people in that body can keep a secret, but they have a mechanism for people who can't.

GAG ORDERS.

FIVE years if you violate it.

"In his legal appeal to Judge Reggie Walton to silence FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, Ashcroft has inadvertently, through the very language of the appeal, provided eloquent proof of treason and misprision of treason within the highest levels of government.

Their refusal to release the report of the Inspector General, and their original gag order to “block discovery in a lawsuit of any information that, if disclosed, would adversely affect national security” raises obvious questions (still unasked by the mainstream and progressive media) as to WHO is being protected. The gag order itself provides the answer to another obvious question (still unasked by the mainstream and progressive media) as to WHY the gag order was sought.

In Ms. Edmonds' unimpeachable testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee almost three years ago, she named countries and people who had contributed to the attacks of 9/11. At the time, the FBI had evidence from Colleen Rowley, The Phoenix memo, and other FBI translators. Twenty-five more whistleblowers have joined them. Who would be damaged by the release of the reports? Who is being protected?

What Ashcroft has done is to admit that those who have read the reports (Ashcroft himself plus the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee including Senators Grassley and Leahy) know the identities of the countries and persons who are responsible for the attacks. And he has confirmed that those responsible must be protected. The press and the Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree.

It is most significant, legally, that Senators Grassley and Leahy have repeatedly demanded that Ashcroft release the Inspector General’s report. Note, they “fear that the designation of information as classified in this case serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability.” Senators Grassley and Leahy are telling you WHY it is classified. Their letters serve as documentary, exculpatory evidence--for them. They have cleared themselves in advance of misprision of treason. Ashcroft has not, and cannot. The time for that would have been before 9/11, not after. In fact, he has heaped evidence upon himself by taking such an active, personal role in the case.

The Inspector General's report contains confirmed evidence of intentional, not accidental, criminality. The validity of the evidence has been confirmed by Senators Grassley and Leahy, and by the FBI. It has also been confirmed by Ashcroft. In his appeal to Judge Walton he stated, “. . . statements in this declaration are based on [his] personal knowledge,”--knowledge that “military secrets are at stake” and that disclosure of the facts would “cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States.” In his decision, Judge Walton agreed.

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/121704Hogue.shtml

Gagged, But Still Going

The appeal court's decision on the Sibel Edmonds case is out: case dismissed, no opinion cited, no reason provided. The court's decision of Friday, May 6, has generated a string of obituaries; "another major blow, maybe the last one, to Sibel Edmonds, a woman who has faced an unprecedented level of government secrecy, gag orders, and classification." Well, dear friends and supporters, Sibel Edmonds may be gagged, but she's not dead.

On Oct. 18, 2002; three months after I filed my suit against the Department of Justice for the unlawful termination of my employment caused by my reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, John Ashcroft, then attorney general, claimed the rarely invoked state secrets privilege. According to Ashcroft, everything involving my case and my allegations was considered a state secret, and whether or not I was right in my allegations, the United States District Court had to dismiss my entire case without any questions, hearings, or oral argument, period. According to Ashcroft, the court had to grant his order and dismiss the entire case with no hearings solely because he said so. After all, our government knew best. That day, my case was gagged, but I continued on.

In April 2004, after attorneys for a large group of 9/11 family members subpoenaed my deposition, Ashcroft made his next move: He invoked the state secrets privilege for the second time, and this time, he designated my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employment all state secrets, classified, and matters of highest-level national security. Based on this new ruling and designation by our ironically named Justice Department, my passport would be considered a top secret document since it contains my place of birth. My Virginia driving license would be considered a top secret document, since it contains my date of birth. Heck, even my resume would be considered top secret since it contains my linguistic credentials and my degrees. That day, I officially became a gagged whistleblower, but I continued on.

In May 2004, two years after two ranking senators (bipartisan) had, in public records and documents, announced me credible and my case and allegations confirmed and supported, an emboldened Ashcroft struck again. This time, he decided to gag the entire Congress on anything that had to with my case. He ordered two ranking senators to take everything referring to me off their Web sites; he ordered them to consider all documents and letters related to my case top secret; and he commanded that members of Congress shut their mouths on any issue that in any way referred or related to me. Our senators obliged, disregarding the principles of the separation of powers, dishonoring the United States Constitution, and disrespecting their own prestige and status. That day, the United States Congress was gagged about my case, but I continued on.

In June 2004, the United States District Court bowed to His Highness John Ashcroft and announced its decision to no longer honor the Constitution's guarantee of due process: it dismissed the case and excused itself from providing any real explanation, on the grounds that any possible explanation, or lack thereof, might be classified state secrets. Our court system, too, was unwilling to stand up for its authority and its separation from the executive branch. In other words, the District Court allowed itself to be gagged, but I continued on.

In July 2004, after two years of unexplained foot-dragging, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General announced that its long overdue investigation of my case complete and issued its report. The further empowered and emboldened attorney general stepped in on that same day and gagged his own inspector general's findings and report by classifying it. The supposedly independent inspector general's office wrapped and duct-taped its report, bowed, and left the scene, but I continued on.

--more at link
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5954

Edmonds is just one of thousands of people gaged after 9/11, which includes the NYPD, NYFD, and anyone and everyone who knew anything about the events of that day.
 
Please read the addition to the post above. The reality is I never said the buildings fell solely because of fire, not one time have I even suggested that. If you believe that I have said that I want you to post it. Link it up, please.

Ok, I'll beg .. why did the buildings collapse, including Building 7 which was not hit by plane or large debris?

Pray tell, what other explanation is there if it wasn't fire, plane, debris, or thermite?
 
Last edited:
See? I told you that you only hear what you want. Please find the post that I said the buildings fell only because of fire. As for the rest, a bunch of hooie. I knew that nothing Threedee had to say would make an impact and warned him in a sardonic way because you don't hear anything if it doesn't fit in what you have decided must be the cause.

In fact several times I suggested that something may have been there to help make the buildings fail, just not Thermite, the distinctive yellow smoke alone would put that claim false. Do I believe that the government put whatever it was there? No. I think they likely covered up the discovery of it so that it didn't look as if they were even more incompetent than they already appeared.

I think that most of the cover was for that purpose, so that they wouldn't have to tell us all that had been done right here under their noses and they could save some face.

I also think the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by the Air Force, not caused by brave passengers.

I believe we don't know the full story of 9/11, I do believe that we have the major pieces. I wish, instead of trying to save face and cover mistakes, the government gave us a full and honest report with all the warts so that we would be better prepared in the future. Nobody was fired was pointed out above. I think it was because the bureaucracy went into full ass-covering mode.

Ok, I'll beg .. why did the buildings collapse, including Building 7 which was not hit by plane or large debris?

Pray tell, what other explanation is there if it wasn't fire, plane, debris, or thermite?

Note the order of the two posts. Note that you only see what you want, and conveniently miss the rest even when told that there were additions and asked to read them.
 
Note the order of the two posts. Note that you only see what you want, and conveniently miss the rest even when told that there were additions and asked to read them.

I simply posted before I read your additions .. which I'll reply to in that post.
 
See? I told you that you only hear what you want. Please find the post that I said the buildings fell only because of fire. As for the rest, a bunch of hooie. I knew that nothing Threedee had to say would make an impact and warned him in a sardonic way because you don't hear anything if it doesn't fit in what you have decided must be the cause.

In fact several times I suggested that something may have been there to help make the buildings fail, just not Thermite, the distinctive yellow smoke alone would put that claim false. Do I believe that the government put whatever it was there? No. I think they likely covered up the discovery of it so that it didn't look as if they were even more incompetent than they already appeared.

I think that most of the cover was for that purpose, so that they wouldn't have to tell us all that had been done right here under their noses and they could save some face.

I also think the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down by the Air Force, not caused by brave passengers.

I believe we don't know the full story of 9/11, I do believe that we have the major pieces. I wish, instead of trying to save face and cover mistakes, the government gave us a full and honest report with all the warts so that we would be better prepared in the future. Nobody was fired was pointed out above. I think it was because the bureaucracy went into full ass-covering mode.

This sounds reasonable, but confusing.

If you believe the government covered up the truth, how do you know so conclusively what the truth is? Just how deep is the rabbit hole?

I don't. I just know what has been presented as the real story is far from it.

Thermite and aluminum oxide actually produces a white smoke, not yellow .. and it produces large amounts of ultra-violet radiation.

Here's another first for you ..

Almost 12 weeks after the terrorist atrocity at New York's World Trade Center, there is at least one fire still burning in the rubble - it is the longest-burning structural fire in history.

Deputy Chief Charles Blaich of the New York City Fire Department would not predict when the last fire might be extinguished. But compared to the situation at the end of September, when aerial thermal images showed the whole of Ground Zero to be a hot spot, conditions today are much safer for the workers clearing the rubble.

This is in part due to the use of a special foaming agent called Pyrocool FEF. On 27 September, the officials ordered 2000 gallons of the liquid, which when added to water produces a slippery, low-viscosity foam.

Berger adds that "Pyrocool also contains two powerful ultra-violet absorbers." These chemicals absorb the high-energy emissions from the fire, which are most able to spread the fire to other materials, and re-emit the energy at a longer, lower-energy wavelength.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634

I disagree with your belief that thermite was not the culprit.

Why was it even there?

How did "terrorists" get access to the structures of all three buildings which all have heavy security .. with the head of security being an ex-FBI agent who believed an attack was imminent .. and with tenants in WTC7 like ..
Department of Defense
Central Intelligence Agency
United States Secret Service
Securities and Exchnage Commission
Office of Emergency Management
American Express Bank International
and a command center for the Mayor of New York?

How would 19 cavemen of really bad english gain access to such heavily-guarded buildings?

If you believe that subterfuge is at the core of the truth of 9/11, how do you reconcile your denials and rejection of testimony of those who don't believe the fairy-tale?

How do you know what is and isn't possible when you know you haven't been told the truth?
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg

Please note the color of the smoke on this thermite reaction. I'm not making it up, the yellow coloring of the smoke is distinctive.

are you serious? Do you think that debunks... better yet, are you convinced by that? LOL
Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg

This is evidence that we wouldn't be able to NOT SEE THE THERMITE REACTION?

LOLZZZZZ
And you laugh about the tinfoil hatters?
 
1540044w.gif


I like this quote from this page
anon said:
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
 
What style!!!

Edit: Enough Tinfoil. You do not post from other's personal sites without permission.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg

Please note the color of the smoke on this thermite reaction. I'm not making it up, the yellow coloring of the smoke is distinctive.

Reconcile that with this ..

http://hackaday.com/2008/09/16/how-to-thermite-based-hard-drive-anti-forensic-destruction/

Clearly, not only did the thermite produce white smoke, it also produced this kind of reaction ..

thermite1.jpg


I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand.

If you know that fire wasn't what brought down the buildings and you suspect that terrorists brought them down, what means did they do so, if not thermite?

And you haven't explained why you think thermite was even present if it didn't have anything to do with the destruction.
 
retarded.

reminds me of the global warming crowd response to everything.


Quality response, mr believer. What won't you believe? Seriously? You haven't even attempted to debunk the evidence, not that a tard like you, who clicks a little button and thinks it's art, would even have a clue as to HOW to debunk the evidence.
 
reminds me of the global warming crowd response to everything.


Quality response, mr believer. What won't you believe? Seriously? You haven't even attempted to debunk the evidence, not that a tard like you, who clicks a little button and thinks it's art, would even have a clue as to HOW to debunk the evidence.

Your responses to overwhelming evidence of the absurdity of this thermite claim reminds me very much of the global warming denial crowd. It's impossible to have an argument with people who will not admit to basic facts or acknowledge evidence to the contrary of what they want to believe.

Your chosen alias "tinfoil hat" tells one all he or she needs to know about you and your ilk.
 
Reconcile that with this ..

http://hackaday.com/2008/09/16/how-to-thermite-based-hard-drive-anti-forensic-destruction/

Clearly, not only did the thermite produce white smoke, it also produced this kind of reaction ..

thermite1.jpg


I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I don't understand.

If you know that fire wasn't what brought down the buildings and you suspect that terrorists brought them down, what means did they do so, if not thermite?

And you haven't explained why you think thermite was even present if it didn't have anything to do with the destruction.
1. That is flame, not the extremely bright light of the thermite reaction. That is not a thermite reaction, it is missing the distinctive colored smoke that I posted an image of. The smoke in the photo I gave of you showed the color of smoke that thermite produces. Seriously, this photo shows nothing that appears as a thermite reaction.
 
are you serious? Do you think that debunks... better yet, are you convinced by that? LOL
Velp-thermitewelding-1.jpg

This is evidence that we wouldn't be able to NOT SEE THE THERMITE REACTION?

LOLZZZZZ
And you laugh about the tinfoil hatters?
BS, the smoke would be visible even if the flame was not. The smoke is not white, it is distinctive. And again, the volume of thermite used to take down the buildings would ensure the light would be visible through the damaged area of the building, in usage you must use eye protection even in the minute amount used to weld on railroad tracks.

This is also based on experience living near and seeing the work on the RR Tracks.

It should also be noted that the reaction here is inside the container yet the light is still incredibly bright. With the amounts used in taking a building down it would be much the same.

Thank you for playing, but if something were used to take the buildings down, it just wasn't thermite it just would have been too obvious.

I also would note that on your site, unless this was in planning at the beginning of the building, the small amounts that could take it down over that amount of time simply weren't used. If something was applied in the amounts necessary for the reaction to take place upon demand, it couldn't have been the amounts listed from your physics site, it would have taken 40 years. Even Bin Laden didn't have that type of planning patience. At that time he was still running around the US sexing up the women.
 
Your responses to overwhelming evidence of the absurdity of this thermite claim reminds me very much of the global warming denial crowd. It's impossible to have an argument with people who will not admit to basic facts or acknowledge evidence to the contrary of what they want to believe.

Your chosen alias "tinfoil hat" tells one all he or she needs to know about you and your ilk.

Yet, beyond the screaming and shouting, it is your side of the argument who can't stand up to facts.

Once the retarded responses died down and geniuine discussion of the evidence began, except for Dano, who also doesn't believe the official story, youir side of the argument dropped out.

There has been PLENTY of opportunity to civily offer any counter argument to the evidence or to offer your own. But you didn't do that good brother .. and I suspect it's because you can't.

You talk about the inability to accept basic facts. Buildings do not collapse from fire .. never have, never will .. and you don't have a shred of history or science to support that they do.

THAT, my brother is a basic fact. Do you accept that?

I suspect that you don't .. not because it's not true, but because you simply can't accept it.
 
BS, the smoke would be visible even if the flame was not. The smoke is not white, it is distinctive. And again, the volume of thermite used to take down the buildings would ensure the light would be visible through the damaged area of the building, in usage you must use eye protection even in the minute amount used to weld on railroad tracks.

This is also based on experience living near and seeing the work on the RR Tracks.

It should also be noted that the reaction here is inside the container yet the light is still incredibly bright. With the amounts used in taking a building down it would be much the same.

Thank you for playing, but if something were used to take the buildings down, it just wasn't thermite it just would have been too obvious.

I also would note that on your site, unless this was in planning at the beginning of the building, the small amounts that could take it down over that amount of time simply weren't used. If something was applied in the amounts necessary for the reaction to take place upon demand, it couldn't have been the amounts listed from your physics site, it would have taken 40 years. Even Bin Laden didn't have that type of planning patience. At that time he was still running around the US sexing up the women.

I've already produced demonstrations of thermite reactions that very clearly produce white smoke .. and the dripping molten metal it produces.

The color of the smoke is no longer a valid argument for your position my brother.

Additionally, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why thermite was present in all three buildings when it shouldn't have been present in any of them? If it wasn't used, why was it there.

Additionally, please explain what else produces the hot spots that kept the area 500 degrees hotter than fire for weeks? If it wasn't thermite, what was it?

Additionally, please explain how terrorists could penetrate the best security aparatus in the world and sneak into the towers to plant whatever it is you think brought down the towers. How is that possible when the head of security believes an attack is imminent and who also happened to be the top counterterrorism expert in the FBI who resigned because the administration was giving his dire warnings the short=end?

And given the list of tenants in the building, how is sneaking in and planting whatever in strategic areas that would bring down giant buildings even possible?
 
Back
Top