Okay.
Nanothermite in WTC dust. [Harrit et al]
By products of said nanothermite in WTC dust. [RJLee, USGS, Steven Jones et al]
Molten steel/vaporized steel [FEMA, denied categorically by John the gross liar Gross, 2nd in command at NIST]
Molten molybdenum
Vaporized lead [RJLee]
Free fall of WTC7, only possible with a controlled demolition. [NIST, Chandler]
Accelerating collapses of the twin towers, only possible with a controlled demolition. [Chandler, Szamboti & McQueen]
Wrong engine for WTC2 [reveals that the entire USGOCT is a lie]
...
And now your evidence for the USGOCT. [ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha]
When are you going to correct your misinformation and apologize for basically calling the researchers, professional, scientists, and first responders liars in the reports they have published?
No nanothermite from the WTC site.
Misrepresenting the conclusions from RGLee Group study. The by products came from known sources from the buildings. If you understood the report you would know that.
Molten steel and the photo you keep harping about has been explained. You refuse to accept you were wrong.
Free fall for part of the WTC7 collapse explained by NIST.
Are you really wanting me to provide the links to the NIST report? You can search yourself.
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
"his analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."
Arson/Explosive Investigtor
Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews. My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs. We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition. This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.
https://undicisettembre.blogspot.de/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html
Have you seen the latest by Mark Basile?
"Chemist[1] Mark Basile has completed his own Raman spectroscopy study on red/gray chips and other materials, including paint. He is currently writing up the data and the report will be made publicly available soon - how soon depends on whether it will simply be posted as a publicly available PDF file, or published in a journal.
Raman spectroscopy is an alternative way to get data similar to the much hyped[2] FTIR data in the failed[3] Millette report:
Raman spectroscopy offers several advantages for microscopic analysis. Since it is a scattering technique, specimens do not need to be fixed or sectioned. Raman spectra can be collected from a very small volume (< 1 µm in diameter); these spectra allow the identification of species present in that volume. Water does not generally interfere with Raman spectral analysis. Thus, Raman spectroscopy is suitable for the microscopic examination of minerals, materials such as polymers and ceramics, cells, proteins and forensic trace evidence
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_spectroscopy"
Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study? - Page 21 - International Skeptics Forum
