I_Gaze_At_The_Blue, I have been reading your debate between Bmann Mcfly for several months. You have made some very valid points in the debate, i.e.; the super thermite slash nano thermite issue.
I am still learning about those kinds of powdered mixtures. Most of what I have been taught was from Ryan Mackey, a Nasa scientist, thru e-mails that I have exchanged with him. He has pointed out to me that nano thermite is not magnetic. As far as thermite goes, some of the scientist like Niels Harrit, who think thermite brought down the buildings is thermite is magnetic after it has been burned not before. Plus, you have the fact that they, Harrit or Steven Jones, have not found any traces of barium nitrate or aluminum oxide in the dust of the WTC. Without those chemicals, it is not thermite.
You can find his stuff on you tube under the TV show Hardfire 9/11. Plus, he published his own paper on the internet on what he thinks happened to the towers on that day and why they collapsed.
Just for the record, I just registered with this debate forum. That is why I have not said anything until now.
Cheers... People have taken a break from posting too hard...
All I gotta say is that if your friend has the equipment I'm aware of the information of where dust samples can be obtained...
Now, one of those guys at ae911truth has already solved SO MANY of the problems with the thermite issue...
And it involves the fact that KNOWING that thermite in itself isn't going to melt steel directionally, what you do is put it in a steel container with an opening focusing in the area to be cut.
The results were he has cut bolts, cut horizontally, cut diagonally, how to cut the outer wall columns, etc, etc... explaining eyewitness testimonies, how there was no barotrauma to be had, the 'explosion' sounds somewhat louder then a firecracker.
He did all these things using regular thermits.
Also, I am not going to debate Bmann since he already has several people debating him here, so I am trying to be fair to him by not overwhelming him with another person who does not believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
There's only a small handful of people that visit this site that question 9-11 in any serious way... so, I do what I can...
Plus, I do not want to say too much because you and I both agree on the 9/11 issue. When two people just agree with each other, the debate becomes real boring real quick. My main goal was to give you a pat on the back for your efforts in your debating skills.
Good job. Thanks for reading my post.
--Sam
Welcome...
It's all a matter of scale, either;
a - you know that you don't want to be in the "against us" category
b - you feel that the government unjustly took advantage of 9-11 after the fact
c - you feel the government may have had a hand in not doing their best to prevent the tragedy
d - the government lied in a general sense
e - elements within the government helped with the attacks, took advantage and / or helped cover-up for any and all crimes.
Whatever category, mostly effects just what information you will consider analyzing.
