Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

The dane didn't seem all that credible too me. He seems to state that nano-thermite can be made into an explosive with additives, and then goes on to speak of it as an explosive the rest of the interview without stating that said additives were found in the thermite from ground zero. Further more he seems way to certain of the implications of this and goes on to state that this means all three of the WTC buildings were brought down by thermite. Also he claims that everything but the steel frame of the building was pulverized, which is plainly wrong. Of course this is just a TV interview and judgement should be based on the contents of the research paper, but on the face of it I find him untrustworthy.

Originally Posted by khh

The dane didn't seem all that credible too me. He seems to state that nano-thermite can be made into an explosive with additives, and then goes on to speak of it as an explosive the rest of the interview without stating that said additives were found in the thermite from ground zero. Further more he seems way to certain of the implications of this and goes on to state that this means all three of the WTC buildings were brought down by thermite. Also he claims that everything but the steel frame of the building was pulverized, which is plainly wrong. Of course this is just a TV interview and judgement should be based on the contents of the research paper, but on the face of it I find him untrustworthy.

Quite fair enough, and I don't feel anyone should take him completely at face value. I believe, like you said, that the conclusions put forth are at least credible enough to be investigated. IF WTC7 was brought down by explosives, is it not within the realm of possibility that the others could have been as well? What I have a problem with, is when the conversations tend to end at "well, those are just allegations", as if those (often credible) allegations have 0 evidence to support them and - more dangerously - don't even warrant the type of actual investigation that is performed on any other crime, by rule of thumb.

What we know, as point of fact, is that the West has ample motive for either staging this type of attack, or allowing it to happen. I would absolutely love to see someone try to refute that. That point, alone, implies that any call for investigation - no matter who is making the call - is a little more than 'crackpot paranoia'. In any other situation, it would be par for the course.