Originally Posted by
BogBrush1903
A Channel 5 documentary last night had two metallurgists on last night staying that the explosions caused within the WTC Buildings were caused by molten aluminium reacting with water to create explosive conditions. They quite rightly pointed out that the NIST report didn't include the fact that there was two aeroplanes inside each building containing around 30 tonnes of aluminium. The said that the debris of the planes had been covered by various detritus within the building creating furnace like conditions.
All seemed very plausible when compared with the NIST report; however, there was no reference to the WTC7 collapse. To the layman's eye WTC7 looked like a very similar collapse the the North & South Towers. But...there was no plane within the building
As with the 9/11 Commission report & the NIST report there is no mention or explanation why this WTC7 building collapsed.
Indeed you can cherry pick segments out of the 9/11 Commission report (the Bin Laden flight was nonsense and easy to disprove, just like the celebrating Israelis or the crap about some of the hijackers still being alive) but can you take it seriously if it fails to mention the collpase of the WTC7?
Why are the wasting space in the report discussing the Bin Laden family leaving the USA and not mentioning the collapse of a third building in NYC?
With regards oddities, I've always thought it would be interesting to find out why Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, thought it was wise to be out on the Pentagon lawn helping people and picking up fragments of the crashed plane soon after the attack and not at his command post?
I would argue that Bush's failure to leave the school promptly is very relevant. It shows that neither he nor his Secret Service were in command of this situation and that they were likely taking orders from the White House...