9/11 Conspiracy Completely Debunked (again)

[HVAC]

1 EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC
BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the
two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus
extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without
anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face
value what we all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the
buildings, damaging the structures and setting off raging fires and
igniting more than 40,000 square feet of office space per floor in a
matter of seconds, igniting furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You
cannot control the area around such a raging fire to start a demolition.


2 NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE.
Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due
to fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed
buildings have. On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall
concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of
Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very
fast, nearly straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint.
Gravity increases the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a
single collapsing floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but
straight down. Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed due
to fire.


3 WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key
is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and
you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating.
So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000
tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to
about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40%
of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To
bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the
core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last,
which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.


4 WHAT ABOUT THOSE EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS TWENTY STORIES BELOW THE COLLAPSE
POINT, AND THOSE HEAVY METAL OBJECTS FLYING HUNDREDS OF FEET THROUGH THE
AIR? During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor
was pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a
“hurricane wind” in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing
out windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects.


5 WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN
A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS
WAS MELTED BY THERMITE? Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted
iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers
welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were
splattered everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of
iron-rich spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if
the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust
study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the
destruction of the WTC … Iron-rich spheres … would be expected to be
present in the Dust.”


6 WHAT ABOUT THE SULFIDIZED STEEL THAT MELTED AND THAT FEMA FOUND BUT
WHICH NIST IGNORED IN THEIR REPORT? NIST didn’t ignore it. Jonathan
Barnett at FEMA studied two pieces of sulfidized steel, which is not
enough to explain the collapse. NIST determined that neither piece came
from a supporting column in the collapse zone so it couldn’t have
contributed to the collapse.7 Sulfidized steel melts at temperatures
1000° lower than regular steel so it could have “melted” in a regular
office fire. And the “intergranular melting” FEMA discovered is not like
melting as we know it anyway; it’s more like corrosion on an almost
microscopic scale occurring along the boundaries between the crystals or
grains of a metal. The technical description for what happened is
“intergranular melting, high temperature corrosion via sulphidation,
oxidation, and decarburisation leading to a liquid Iron Oxide Suflur mix
from grain boundary melting.” And while Jonathan Barnett would like to
see more research on this, he does not support the controlled demolition
theory.


7 WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST
SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT? Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and other 9/11
controlled demolition theorists claim to have found nanothermite
particles in dust samples from the World Trade Center. They made sure
the dust samples were untainted, and used advanced instruments to
measure what happened when these tiny red-grey chips were heated up.

Thermites reach temperatures of around 4500° and have their own oxygen
supply when they burn, so they can burn underwater. Harritt, Jones, et.
al. therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon
atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were
burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the
mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product
burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their
burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that
their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known
nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and
the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a
match for nanothermite!

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal.
Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study,
burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original
experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named
Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original
experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could
not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and
didn’t find thermitic material.


8 WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BIG FIRES IN TALL BUILDINGS THAT DON’T CAUSE
COLLAPSE, AND THE LITTLE FIRES IN BUILDING 7? Richard Gage and other
9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists like to show an NYPD photograph
of small fires on the north face of Building 7. That’s not the side
where tons of flaming debris from the towers smashed into the south
face, creating huge gashes and fires on multiple floors. In our debate
Gage claimed that the videos I played showed smoke but no fire. When the
fires first started on the southwest corner of Building 7, the dust was
blocking the view. NIST reported that many fires burned themselves out
in 20-40 minutes and then moved on. The fires left behind not only
burned out areas, but structurally weakened areas as the beams and
columns expanded, sagged, and contracted again. Then the fires started
moving to the interior of the building. Is he suggesting that all that
smoke wasn’t evidence of fire, or that burned out areas went back to
full structural strength?


9 WHAT ABOUT JANE STANDLEY, THAT BBC REPORTER WHO ANNOUNCED THAT
BUILDING 7 HAD ALREADY FALLEN WHEN IT WAS STILL STANDING RIGHT BEHIND
HER? This one is irritating to a guy like me who’s been in radio for
over 30 years. Reporters make mistakes! What possible value could there
be in letting the BBC in on the “conspiracy”? Here’s what probably
happened: Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department
recalled: “We had our special operations people set up surveying
instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of [WTC 7]. We
were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building… One
particular engineer there, we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could
we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?… And it turned out that
he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, ‘In its current
state, you have about five hours.’” Other errors in reporting show the
chaos of the day, not a well-oiled conspiratorial machine at work. To wit:

CNN Reported at 11:07 am that Building 7 had collapsed at 10:45, or 15
minutes after the second tower collapse at around 10:30. CNN got their
misinformation from the respected news agency Reuters, which picked up
an incorrect report. They have issued this statement: “On 11 September
2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New
York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The
report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon
as it emerged that the building had not fallen.”

On 9/11, reporters also said that Camp David had been hit by a plane.
Forbes magazine reported that “A car bomb exploded outside the State
Department, according to State Department sources.” CBS News reported
that as many as eight planes have been hijacked and only four have been
accounted for.

It is not hard to imagine how such mistakes could be made, especially
when there is no time to sift through and analyze fast-moving
information. As NIST reported, “The large dust clouds generated by the
collapse of WTC 1 hid the lower portions of WTC 7 from view for over 20
min following the collapse.” So firefighters on the ground saw only dust
where Building 7 was until around 10:50 am and may have thought it had
come down.


10 WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE? Many firefighters reported seeing
structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse,
including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, “I feared a
collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1
damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a
small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower
levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water
supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without
consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer,
that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone
surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.
Approximately three hours after … WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories
abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.”

In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph
Weindler said: “So we left 7 World Trade Center… and Captain Varriale
told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged
on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said
we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center,
which we did.”

And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: “We saw a bulge in the southwest
corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and
we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.”

Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani’s chief
lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building
7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard
and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to
the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story,
claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the
10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris
hitting the building later in the morning. “There were no explosions.
That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half
of our building.” He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling
earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.


11 WHAT ABOUT THOSE ACCOUNTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE TWIN TOWERS? I read 50
randomly selected accounts out of some 118 or so accounts from
firefighters of explosions from the New York Times. None were of
explosions before the actual collapse. Those accounts Gage found
concentrated around the core and the basement where explosions from the
jet fuel traveling down the elevator shafts caused several explosions
and fireballs. Out of 5000 former and current FDNY 9/11 employees, only
ten have come out and said they believe bombs were placed in these
buildings. Further, firefighters have personally told me that explosions
in office fires are not uncommon. Here is a list of a few things that
explode in an office fire:

HVAC equipment including condensers and compressors
Cleaning supplies
CRT type TV’s and computer monitors.
Large motors that have an oil reservoir for lube. (Elevator lift
motors)
Hydraulic pistons found in office chairs.
Tires in vehicles
Steam explosions when water hits a hot fire or molten aluminum
Propane tanks

If bombs were going off to create a precise controlled demolition, then
there would be a pattern. Eyewitness accounts of explosions were random:
fireballs, mere flashes of light, ground shaking with no other apparent
effect. This is consistent with the kinds of random effects of fires
spreading through buildings and down the elevator shaft. Eyewitness
Philip Morell talked of explosive sounds like bombs in a 9/11 Mysteries
video clip, but I went back to the complete original interview. The
director cut out the part where he then explained that he ran over to
the noise and discovered that the explosive sounds were actually from a
crashing freight elevator, which did indeed create a tremendous crashing
thud felt throughout the basement.


12 WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7? That is the silver
bullet that proves controlled demolition! NIST studied the collapse of
one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one
face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories
over 2.25 seconds. The rest of that collapse was at considerably less
than free-fall. After the internal supports collapsed, the perimeter
walls were pulled inward. Every time a column snapped like a stick, it
shifted its load at the speed of sound to other columns, and the
collapse “gradually” accelerated over about two seconds. In phase two,
the building was indeed collapsing at free-fall acceleration.

Free-fall collapse speed does not mean no resistance, it means no net
resistance. Those collapsing beams still clinging to the walls
functioned as levers. So there were three forces at work on Building 7
during its collapse, and the sum of these three forces varied with time:
the constant downward force of gravity, the variable upward force of
residual structural resistance, and variable leveraged downward forces
due to connections to other parts of the building. The leveraging forces
may have briefly accelerated parts of Building 7 at greater than 1G, and
in fact the NIST Report shows very slightly faster than free-fall for a
second or so, though that could just be the margin of error.
“What about” vs. “If… then”

The 9/11 controlled demolition theorists seem to like the “what about…”
challenge. They know that even the most intelligent layperson can’t
answer all their questions, and even if you can answer five “what about”
questions in a row, then they’ll give you a real zinger, like this one
from Richard Gage: “What about the EPA’s Erik Swartz who said they found
1,3-diphenylpropane at levels ‘that dwarfed all others. We’ve never
observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done.” Unless you’ve checked, you
won’t know that Gage edited out the next sentence of the Times Union
article where that first appeared, which continues, “He also said it was
most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning
computers.” Gage thinks 1,3-diphenylpropane was used for the sol-gel
solution for safe storage of nanothermites. The patent lists
pharmacological uses such as treating complications associated with
metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemias,
atherosclerosis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, hypertension,
inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative pathologies, Alzheimers, or
cancers but never mentions thermites or even plastic computer parts.

Instead of the “What about” game these conspiracy theorists play, I
prefer the “if … then” approach:
Sun streams over WTC wreckage (Photo by Andrea Booher/FEMA News Photo,
taken on 09-13-2001. As works of the U.S. federal government, all FEMA
images are in the public domain.)

If 4500 degree thermitics had been used to pulverize almost every inch
of every concrete floor, then firefighters could not have walked on top
of the debris pile that was left behind after the collapse. This photo
shows that large parts of the buildings were left intact and not pulverized.

If 4500 degree nanothermites were used to pulverize almost every
inch of every concrete floor, then how could there have been millions of
sheets of paper with an ignition temperature of only 451° raining down
on the sidewalks?
If 4500 degree nanothermites were used extensively even at the top
to cause a supposed upward explosion, then why were first responders
able to walk over the wreckage less than an hour after the Tower collapses?
If there were 2800 degree rivers of molten steel in the debris,
then why do NASA thermal images show maximum temperatures in the rubble
of only 1400°?
If the debris pile had 2800 degree temperatures, then why were
firefighters able to pour millions of gallons of water all over it and
not trigger the deadly thermal explosions that are caused when water
comes in contact with molten steel or iron?
If nanothermites pulverized everything, then why did the debris
pile include a 13-story high facade?
If classic controlled demolitions create minimal damage to adjacent
structures, then why did the Verizon Building suffer $1.4 billion in
damages?
If the lateral ejection of beams were caused by explosive
nanothermites, then there would have been deafening 140 db sounds that
can’t be muffled by more than a few db or you lose the explosive force
of the shock wave itself.
If the South Tower tilted 22° at first, then controlled demolition
experts could not have righted it mid-collapse.
If nanothermites were used, then they would have spontaneously
detonated at well under 1000° F. and would not have been controllable;
no signal receiving device could have survived the fires and continued
to receive the destruct command.
If there had been large explosions prior to the collapse, then they
would have been a part of the seismic record, and they were not.









--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Hägar]

"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jfbomm$mvl$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

>
> 1 EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC
> BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two
> World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive
> security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone
> noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we
> all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging
> the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000
> square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting
> furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area
> around such a raging fire to start a demolition.
>
>
> 2 NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE.
> Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to
> fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings
> have. On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel
> architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the
> Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly
> straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint. Gravity increases
> the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a single collapsing
> floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but straight down.
> Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed due to fire.
>
>
> 3 WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is
> the "almost" modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you
> found out I was making only $67,000, you'd say I was exaggerating. So stop
> exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of

> structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ?

> (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of
> free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: "To bring a
> building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core
> columns." But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which
> violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.
>
>
> 4 WHAT ABOUT THOSE EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS TWENTY STORIES BELOW THE COLLAPSE
> POINT, AND THOSE HEAVY METAL OBJECTS FLYING HUNDREDS OF FEET THROUGH THE
> AIR? During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was
> pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a
> "hurricane wind" in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out
> windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects.
>
>
> 5 WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A
> DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS
> MELTED BY THERMITE? Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron
> blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded
> thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered
> everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of iron-rich
> spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if the
> microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study
> said, "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of

> the WTC . Iron-rich spheres . would be expected to be present in the

> collapse of the building. One particular engineer there, we asked him, if

> we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how

> soon?. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that

> the mayor or anyone else-as ranking fire officer, that decision was my

> responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to

> stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after . WTC

> 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of
> them are without merit."
>
> In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph

> Weindler said: "So we left 7 World Trade Center. and Captain Varriale told

> Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the
> south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were
> going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we
> did."
>
> And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: "We saw a bulge in the southwest
> corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we
> were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
>
> Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's chief
> lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7
> and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and

> felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5-10 seconds prior to the

> "What about" vs. "If. then"
>
> The 9/11 controlled demolition theorists seem to like the "what about."

> challenge. They know that even the most intelligent layperson can't answer
> all their questions, and even if you can answer five "what about"
> questions in a row, then they'll give you a real zinger, like this one
> from Richard Gage: "What about the EPA's Erik Swartz who said they found
> 1,3-diphenylpropane at levels 'that dwarfed all others. We've never
> observed it in any sampling we've ever done." Unless you've checked, you
> won't know that Gage edited out the next sentence of the Times Union
> article where that first appeared, which continues, "He also said it was
> most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning
> computers." Gage thinks 1,3-diphenylpropane was used for the sol-gel
> solution for safe storage of nanothermites. The patent lists
> pharmacological uses such as treating complications associated with
> metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemias,
> atherosclerosis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, hypertension,
> inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative pathologies, Alzheimers, or
> cancers but never mentions thermites or even plastic computer parts.
>
> Instead of the "What about" game these conspiracy theorists play, I prefer

> the "if . then" approach:

Have a great day, BAST ... how old was your sister again ... you know,
the one who perished in the terrorist attacks on the WTC ???

[HVAC]

On 1/20/2012 8:46 AM, Hägar wrote:
>
>>
>
> Have a great day, BAST ... how old was your sister again ... you know,
> the one who perished in the terrorist attacks on the WTC ???

Bast recently claimed that she attended MIT... *My* alma mater.

Perhaps it was her 'dead' sister that went to MIT?

[Bast]

You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise

http://www.ae911truth.org

And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Ernie]

13. WHAT WAS THE ROOT CAUSE OF WTC7 COLLAPSE. WTC7 picked up and stored
vibrational energy from the collapses of the other towers. It stored them
up like a battery being charge. Over charge a battery and you will
eventually "split' it. Same thing with WTC7. HVAC and I are on the same
page, just wanted to add "the rest of the story." Ernie

"HVAC" <mr....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jfbomm$mvl$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>

> 1 EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC
> BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two
> World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive
> security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone
> noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we
> all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging
> the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000
> square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting
> furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area
> around such a raging fire to start a demolition.
>
>
> 2 NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE.
> Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to
> fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings
> have. On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel
> architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the
> Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly
> straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint. Gravity increases
> the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a single collapsing
> floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but straight down.
> Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed due to fire.
>
>
> 3 WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is
> the "almost" modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you
> found out I was making only $67,000, you'd say I was exaggerating. So stop
> exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of

> structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ?

> (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of
> free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: "To bring a
> building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core
> columns." But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which
> violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.
>
>
> 4 WHAT ABOUT THOSE EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS TWENTY STORIES BELOW THE COLLAPSE
> POINT, AND THOSE HEAVY METAL OBJECTS FLYING HUNDREDS OF FEET THROUGH THE
> AIR? During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was
> pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a
> "hurricane wind" in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out
> windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects.
>
>
> 5 WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A
> DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS
> MELTED BY THERMITE? Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron
> blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded
> thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered
> everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of iron-rich
> spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if the
> microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study
> said, "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of

> the WTC . Iron-rich spheres . would be expected to be present in the

> collapse of the building. One particular engineer there, we asked him, if

> we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how

> soon?. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that

> the mayor or anyone else-as ranking fire officer, that decision was my

> responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to

> stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after . WTC

> 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of
> them are without merit."
>
> In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph

> Weindler said: "So we left 7 World Trade Center. and Captain Varriale told

> Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the
> south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were
> going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we
> did."
>
> And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: "We saw a bulge in the southwest
> corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we
> were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
>
> Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's chief
> lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7
> and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and

> felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5-10 seconds prior to the

> "What about" vs. "If. then"
>
> The 9/11 controlled demolition theorists seem to like the "what about."

> challenge. They know that even the most intelligent layperson can't answer
> all their questions, and even if you can answer five "what about"
> questions in a row, then they'll give you a real zinger, like this one
> from Richard Gage: "What about the EPA's Erik Swartz who said they found
> 1,3-diphenylpropane at levels 'that dwarfed all others. We've never
> observed it in any sampling we've ever done." Unless you've checked, you
> won't know that Gage edited out the next sentence of the Times Union
> article where that first appeared, which continues, "He also said it was
> most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning
> computers." Gage thinks 1,3-diphenylpropane was used for the sol-gel
> solution for safe storage of nanothermites. The patent lists
> pharmacological uses such as treating complications associated with
> metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, diabetes, dyslipidemias,
> atherosclerosis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, hypertension,
> inflammatory diseases, neurodegenerative pathologies, Alzheimers, or
> cancers but never mentions thermites or even plastic computer parts.
>
> Instead of the "What about" game these conspiracy theorists play, I prefer

> the "if . then" approach:

[Bast]

That page is what you get when you only look at books from the FICTION
section at your local NWO book depository.

try this
http:/www.ae911truth.org

And see what REALLY happened

[John Baker]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:07:56 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>
>http://www.ae911truth.org
>

>And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 truthers are nut jobs.


Fixed it for ya.

[Tony Dragon]

On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org
>
> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>
>
>

Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?

I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.

What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?

[Bast]

John Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:07:56 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>

>> You are a moron to believe ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>> otherwise
>>
>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>
>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
>
>
> Fixed it for ya.



You just proved those who think, have you worried,....and I corrected YOUR
ERROR.

[Mr. K]

In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,

Well, why was there never a real investigation? Do I smell "cover-up"?
as they say. "Follow the Money"
This would not be the first time lies and murder were used to stampede
the Americans into a war.
Killing 3000 was nothing to the Warmongers. Just an opening "battle" .
--
Karma, What a concept!

[John Baker]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net>
wrote:

>In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
>> > You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>> >
>> > http://www.ae911truth.org
>> >
>> > And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>
>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>
>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>
>Well, why was there never a real investigation?

There was.

>Do I smell "cover-up"?

Nope. That's the stink of your own bullshit.

[Tony Dragon]

So you have no answer to the questions.

[Freedom Man]

The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!

The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
understand why, and know the truth, read on - -

To understand the point I wish to make, let's assume that an obviously alien
creature was walking peacefully down the street, and observe peoples'
reactions to it.

Some would simply not see it! Their brains would reject as IMPOSSIBLE what
their eyes tell them, and block out their awareness of the unearthly
creature.

Some might stare, perhaps be shocked or frightened, but then go on,
rationalizing that they only saw someone in costume, or that they had
indulged too heavily at last night's party and were seeing things. They
would tell no one what they saw for fear of being thought crazy. They would
even, in defense of their own rationalization, label other people that
reported such a sighting as crazy. This is the psychological phenomenon of
DENIAL.

Perhaps in fear for their own sanity, deniers condemn as crazy others that
claim aliens or whatever to be real. Such assertions are frightening because
they violate their sense of reality - "only KOOKS believe in aliens!" Thus
people tend to reject as unreal what is not comfortable for them to accept,
and likewise embrace beliefs that do not hold up to scientific scrutiny but
do provide them comfort. You don't believe what you DON'T WANT to believe;
denial thus serves to protect the mind from what would be mentally traumatic
if accepted.

Some things are simply too horrific, too abominably appalling, too greatly
in violation of what we WANT to think or believe, to accept as actual
reality - even when they ARE real! "Look; the Emperor wears no clothes,"
said the child too naïve to know that such facts are not to be spoken of,
nor even acknowledged to oneself.

PSYOPS - definition paraphrased from Wikipedia: Psychological Operations.
Techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, beliefs,
emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. PSYOPS are used to induce
confessions or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the
originator's objectives, and are sometimes combined with black operations or
false flag tactics. The phrase is commonly used by governments who wish to
avoid the terms propaganda and brainwashing in reference to their own work
because those terms have negative connotations. The use of such euphemisms
for what is in effect mind control is in itself an example of psychological
operations, i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade a large number
of people to support something they wouldn't normally support or to
unquestioningly accept lies.

Obviously, to permit or commit an atrocity on the scale of the 9/11 attacks,
and/or to exploit the horror, shock, and fear thus created to influence
public opinion and actions, is clearly a PSYOP. The exploitation of the
psychological phenomenon of DENIAL is also clearly a PSYOP. Who would want
to believe that traitors in our own government would permit, or even
perpetrate, such an atrocity on their own people? How much easier it would
be to accept the existence of aliens - or fanatical Jihadists!

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy
and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they
are being attacked and then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -
Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.

Now that we understand what PSYOPS are, and the psychological phenomenon of
DENIAL, we are in a better position to rationally investigate the true
nature and possible sources of the 9/11 attacks.

The UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE of an INSIDE JOB:

BLOWN TO BITS:

The sudden, complete, straight down at near free-fall speed collapse of
steel framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the
SMOKING GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's few small fires and
superficial debris damage could not account for this collapse, which had all
the earmarks of controlled demolition by explosives. Videos clearly show
this. Such demolitions take many days or weeks to set up - not the few hours
between the plane "attacks" and the collapse. The explosives therefore had
to be put in place BEFOREHAND. This lends credibility to the use of
previously placed explosives to bring down the towers as well, which like
the badly damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building would probably have
remained standing.

Propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in psychological denial
still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it obviously was, and
they employ often ludicrous rationalizations and fabrications, elaborate
lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend their indefensible
position. The REAL terrorists are desperate to cover up their mass-murderous
crime of the century - the permitting if not perpetration of, and subsequent
political and economic exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster.
Could Bin Laden have somehow totally incapacitated NORAD - the world's most
sophisticated aerospace defense system - on that horrible morning? I don't
think so!

There is evidence of an INSIDE JOB even more clear and indisputable than the
explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance (shattering
force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow bodies to tiny
bits and throw them such distances.

So - who can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their
being the result of high explosives being detonated in the towers?


The NORAD STAND-DOWN (complete failure to take defensive action) is
compelling evidence of the 9/11 conspiracy. NORAD is the world's most
sophisticated aerospace defense system, with backups and redundancies that
make it extremely reliable and effective. NORAD routinely intercepts off
course or out of communication aircraft of all kinds, especially near such
security-sensitive areas as New York City and the Pentagon. On 9/11, FOUR
allegedly hijacked subsonic-speed commercial jets were out of communication
and flying towards known terrorist targets for well over an hour. NOT ONE of
these planes was intercepted by NORAD! We were told that NORAD only looks
for aircraft coming from outside the USA, but this is a blatant LIE, given
the history of NORAD's routine interceptions!


The following article proves, using the inviolate laws of physics, the
falsity of the government's propaganda explanation for the World Trade
Center building collapses:

SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE - GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK

On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World TradeCenter
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.

In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."

We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale!"

Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?

The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.

According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.

There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts

* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steelcore
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.

* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.

Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.

How Gravity Acts:

Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force ofgravity at
and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.

Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet persecond
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.

So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.

Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object isfalling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.

Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found inany
high-school physics book

* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D =1/2 x
G x T x T)

So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work:

We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work,using
conservation of energy.

We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energyin a
barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn gasoline
in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some heat, as an
engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to bleed off some
of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy isconverted into heat (the
brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy [molecular or atomic]
to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to shatter or even
pulverize concrete.

In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whateveris
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.

So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.

The equation for potential energy is
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G xH)

The equation for kinetic energy is
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)

So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object hasa
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32x144
= 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 seconds is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared
=1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy.Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance

The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.

That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way inorder
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.

This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall.At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with theair
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the accelerationupward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity ismaintained.

Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows theperson
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.

A Quick Recap:

Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by airresistance it
falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to fall
a given distance.

Free-fall From WTC Building Heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an objectto
free-fall from the towers' height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)

With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time,T:

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.

Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is justover
200 mph.

But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.

Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.

Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.

Observations from 9/11:

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.

But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.

This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively without friction as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!

What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!

Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?

Conclusions

In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met

* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.

None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.

The Bottom Line

The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.

It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that theWTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.

The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.

The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.

Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.

---------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation Also see:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

SO - WHO DONE IT??

Any good detective will tell you that the way to find criminals is to
investigate those that benefitted, or stood to benefit, from the crime.
Surely those that were quickly blamed for this mass-murderous crime of the
century - Bin Laden, etc., had evil intentions against America, but could
not have done it single-handedly. Just after 9/11 Iraq and Saddam Hussein
were implied as guilty in a PSYOP to justify the invasion of Iraq, when in
fact they were blameless for 9/11.

Here are some that, under the criteria of the good detective above, must be
considered suspects:

Bush, Cheney, and their fellow Republican/neo-conservatives then in power.
Then NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.
WTC owner/leaseholder Larry Silverstein.
The theocratic nation of Israel.

DEMAND that congress reopen the investigation and bring the real
MASS-MURDERERS to justice!

NINE ELEVEN - NEVER AGAIN!

[Freedom Man]

THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
controlled demolition of buildings.
Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a further
developed form.
The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE and
ALUMINUM.
Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and WHITE
HOT MOLTEN IRON.
The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns like a
hot knife cuts through butter.
Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
structure.
The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as it
collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to cool and
solidify.
There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence of
large quantities of molten iron!

[raven1]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net>
wrote:

>In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
>> > You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>> >
>> > http://www.ae911truth.org
>> >
>> > And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>
>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>
>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>
>Well, why was there never a real investigation?

There was. Two of them, in fact: the 9/11 Commission, and the NIST
report. How many investigations would it take to satisfy the
"Truthers"? Likely answer: no investigation will ever satisfy them
unless the results agree with their preconception that the attacks
were an inside job.

> Do I smell "cover-up"?
>as they say. "Follow the Money"
>This would not be the first time lies and murder were used to stampede
>the Americans into a war.

Nor would it be the first time an Administration took opportunistic
advantage of an attack on American soil to drag us into war. Against a
nation, one might note, that was not involved.

>Killing 3000 was nothing to the Warmongers. Just an opening "battle" .

There's no evidence - none - that the Bush Administration played any
part in 9/11. What they did do was use it as a pretext for their
agenda. Unfounded conspiracy theories only distract attention from the
real malfeasance that went on, and that is a damned shame.

[Freedom Man]

I know what I saw with my own eyes on live TV on 9/11 - the camera being on
a news helicoptor about level with the top of the first tower to collapse.

The first thing was the appearance of a cloud of debris shooting out
horizontally from the floors at and near the TOP of the building, NOT at the
level on which the plane struck the building.

Then the collapse began - FROM THE TOP DOWN. It proceeded at near free-fall
speed until the building was a pile of rubble.

In retrospect, I can only conclude this was a controlled demolition by
explosives, but unlike the standard procedure where the explosives are
detonated simultaneously at the bases of the supporting steel columns, the
entire building had explosives planted in it and they were detonated in
sequence from the top down.

Photos and videos showing molten steel cascading from one of the towers as
it collapsed proves that demolition explosives, employing thermate and high
explosive "kicker" charges, were used. There is no other scientifically
credible explanation for these large quantities of white-hot molten steel
being present.

I later saw, on live TV, the sudden, straight down, near free-fall speed
collapse of building 7, which unlike the towers WAS a standard procedure
controlled demoliton by explosives.

BLOWN TO BITS: FURTHER PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB

The sudden, complete, straight down at free fall speed collapse of steel

framed WTC building 7, which was not touched by the planes, is the SMOKING

GUN of the 9/11 conspiracy. The building's minor fires and debris damage

could not account for this collapse, which had all the earmarks of

controlled demolition by explosives. Such demolitions take many days or
weeks to set up - not the few hours between the attacks and the collapse.
The explosives therefore had to be put in place BEFOREHAND, lending

credibility to the use of previously placed explosives to bring down the

towers as well, which like the damaged and fire-gutted Deutchbank building

would probably have remained standing.

Government-paid propaganda shills, disinformationists, and those in

psychological denial still insist the collapse of WTC 7 could not be what it

obviously was, and they present often ludicrous explanations and

fabrications, elaborate lies, and infantile ad-hominem attacks to defend

their indefensible position. The Homeland Terrorists are obviously

desperate to cover up their mass-murderous crime of the century - the

foreknowledge if not perpetration of, and subsequent political and economic

exploitation of the fully preventable 9/11 disaster. Could Bin Laden have

somehow totally incapacitated our NORAD defenses on that horrible morning?

I don't think so!

But there is evidence of the INSIDE JOB as clear and indisputable as the

explosive demolition collapse of building 7 and the standing down of NORAD.
Many very small HUMAN BODY FRAGMENTS have been found on the roofs of nearby
buildings. These were too far away to be from jumpers from the towers. If
the towers simply collapsed from damage and fire alone, what blew these
bodies to smithereens and sent the fragments flying for considerable
distances? The plane impacts did not have the explosive brisance
(shattering force) necessary to do this - only HIGH EXPLOSIVES can blow
bodies to tiny bits and throw them such distances.

So - shills, disinformationists, and those chronically in denial - who among
you can credibly account for these body fragments, other than their being

[HVAC]

On 1/20/2012 10:19 AM, Tony Dragon wrote:
>
>>
>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>
> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>
> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?

Tony, did you know that Bast attended MIT?
Also, his sister died in the attacks on 9/11.


Please show all due respect.........

[Brad Guth]

But whenever seriously bad things happen, it is supposedly never the
dysfunctional policy or fault of anyone or any group within or above
the elected and appointed authority of our republic, because
supposedly our highly Semitic approved government and of those
controlling it have never lied to us nor having obfuscated a damn
thing. Go figure, perhaps these mainstream FUD-masters have been
right all along, and for the same reason that we should trust that
pigs truly can fly and hell freezes over on a regular basis.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[George152]

On 1/21/2012 3:07 AM, Bast wrote:
> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org
>
> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

Wrong !
Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
How's that imaginary family of yours again?

[George152]

Riiiight.
Now you're claiming to think ?
We have a different name for it kook belief or lying nutter

[George152]

And your evidence is ????????????

[George152]

On 1/21/2012 7:14 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
> controlled demolition of buildings.

No. Wrong

> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a further
> developed form.

No. Wrong

> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE and
> ALUMINUM.
> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and WHITE
> HOT MOLTEN IRON.
> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns like a
> hot knife cuts through butter.
> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
> structure.
> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as it
> collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to cool and
> solidify.
> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence of
> large quantities of molten iron!

There was no molten iron or steel.

And there were no explosives

[Brad Guth]

But supposedly you're not an expert in anything, because you're not
officially associated with any official expertise that's even remotely
credible. So, what's your phony/bogus stake in this?

[Brad Guth]

I'm certain that you and the likes of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler
always see things eye to eye.

[Bast]

Would you like to see PROOFabout Oklahoma City

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dduttdexgPY

9/11is also coming under the same scrutiny
And the Bush administration will be swinging from oak trees in the history
books over 9/11.

[Bast]

Ignoring the facts didn't make the sun circle the earth either.

Sister has still never been proven to be alive,....do you know where she has
been hiding for over 10 years ?
....Since you say it's a fraud ? I guess you have PROOF no one died on 9/11

You are a sockpuppet.
And none of your fake accounts will ever prove me wrong.

BTW you are a twit, HVAC/Hagar

[Bast]

No there wasn't.
And it took years but now the denial has changed to acceptance in the
Official fairytale.

http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE

When this keeps getting reposted all over the web

[Bast]

It's documented

http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE


Your denial of reality means NOTHING

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 20, 11:54 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> raven1 wrote:

> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <george...@toast.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TSnZ2dnUVZ7tadn...@bt.com>,

9/11 was pure karma, as a payback for how our mutually perpetrated
cold-war and the cabal of global energy and drugs was and still is
getting away with their ethnic and faith-based caste system of global
extortion and treason. Just our luck, there may be an oak tree
deficiency for hanging them all.

[John Baker]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:53:45 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>John Baker wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:07:56 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You are a moron to believe ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>>> otherwise
>>>
>>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>

>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 truthers are FUCKING NUT CASES.

>>
>>
>> Fixed it for ya.
>
>
>
>You just proved those who think, have you worried,....

Even if that were true, Skippy, I'd have nothing to worry about from
you.

>and I corrected YOUR
>ERROR.

Sorry, Sport, but the truth is that people who *are* sane know you
*aren't.*




>
>

[raven1]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:54:39 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

I would like to see the RELEVANCE of Oklahoma City.

[DanielSan]

Molten iron would cool to black. This didn't cool to black. What
you're seeing is the melting aluminum of the hull of the aircraft in the
building. This can be seen in other plane crashes where they don't even
collide with buildings and the mere friction of the crash was hot enough
to melt the aluminum hull.

[Bast]

You Lose.

[Tony Dragon]

On 20/01/2012 18:53, HVAC wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 10:19 AM, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>
>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>
>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>
>
> Tony, did you know that Bast attended MIT?
> Also, his sister died in the attacks on 9/11.
>
>
> Please show all due respect.........
>
>

I will show him all the respect he deserves.

[Bast]

Uhhh,..so actual interviews with those directly involved is not relevant ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dduttdexgPY

Will you only believe it, if Popular Mechanics publish it ?
That you deleted the link is VERY SUSPECT, that you prefer something you
would rather not become public

[Tony Dragon]

I wonder why the steel works have so much trouble with steel & iron
solidifying if it can stay molten for so long.

[DanielSan]

And it's a bit hard to coax liquid metal to cut horizontally. What,
with gravity pulling the liquid downwards vertically and all. It works
best on horizontal beams so that the liquid can pour onto the beams to
cut through it.

Maybe if there was something to direct the liquid metal with force at
the vertical support structures...such as, y'know, something like a
fire-hose.

[Bast]

Uhhh, you better check with the central office of 9/11 offical fairytales.
As their story now claims this was a result of water in the sprinklers
reacting with the molten steel, which still makes no sense.

[DanielSan]

Sorry, no central office for me, thanks. I am using your own citations
and interpreting them with my knowledge of the world.

> As their story now claims this was a result of water in the sprinklers
> reacting with the molten steel, which still makes no sense.

I have not heard this (as I don't go to a "central office"). Also, what
molten steel?

[Bast]

Simple,...tell them to use Thermite/Thermate,...it's worked great for the
military for decades.

[DanielSan]

On 1/20/2012 1:00 PM, Bast wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:
>> On 20/01/2012 18:14, Freedom Man wrote:
>>> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
>>> controlled demolition of buildings.
>>> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a
>>> further developed form.
>>> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE
>>> and ALUMINUM.
>>> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and
>>> WHITE HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>>> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns
>>> like a hot knife cuts through butter.
>>> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>>> structure.
>>> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as
>>> it collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to
>>> cool and solidify.
>>> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence
>>> of large quantities of molten iron!
>>>
>>>
>>

>> I wonder why the steel works have so much trouble with steel& iron

>> solidifying if it can stay molten for so long.
>
>
>
> Simple,...tell them to use Thermite/Thermate,...it's worked great for the
> military for decades.

How does one use thermite to cut vertical support structures?

[Bast]

I don't demand respect.
The facts do.

BTW it's "she"

[Bast]

http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE

Uh, the molten steel that the first responders and Giulianni were talking
about

http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM

http://youtu.be/8YaFGSPErKU


And it was even confirmed by NASA satellites in infrared scans months after

[DanielSan]

Again, this looks like the melting aluminum of the plane's hull.

> Uh, the molten steel that the first responders and Giulianni were talking
> about

And they're experts on this, are they?

>
> http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM

And these? Experts?

> http://youtu.be/8YaFGSPErKU

And finally, an expert. And then the video cuts him off and goes back
to people that aren't experts.

[Bast]

Fill the hollow column, then use shape charges to do the actual cutting so a
building can fall into it's actual footprint
It's all here, and explains how it can be done

http://www.ae911truth.org

[DanielSan]

It could be done that way. Is there any evidence that it *WAS* done
that way? Where are the shape charges? Where are those devices? Do
you have any evidence that those devices exist?

[DanielSan]

Let me elaborate, I would like to see some evidence, hard evidence, not
some edited collection of clips in a Youtube video. Hard evidence, please.

[HVAC]

On 1/20/2012 2:54 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>
> Would you like to see PROOFabout Oklahoma City
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dduttdexgPY
>
> 9/11is also coming under the same scrutiny
> And the Bush administration will be swinging from oak trees in the history
> books over 9/11.

Again, exactly WHAT year(s) did you attend MIT?









--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

[Bast]

Have you EVER seen molten aluminum GLOW ?
It looks like mercury at best.
...Grey/silver and fluid

Molten aluminum will NEVER glow, no matter how hot you get it

>
>> Uh, the molten steel that the first responders and Giulianni were
>> talking about
>
> And they're experts on this, are they?
>
>>
>> http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM
>
> And these? Experts?
>
>> http://youtu.be/8YaFGSPErKU
>
> And finally, an expert. And then the video cuts him off and goes back
> to people that aren't experts.

So your expert denies KNOWING about what Giulianni and the first responders
who were actually THERE actually saw ?
And that proves WHAT ?

[Brad Guth]

Most of the forensic evidence was systematically carted away and the
vast bulk of other materials prevented from being independently
collected. Lots of investigative forensic details as to the
construction, maintenance, inert plus live floor loading and many
safety related factors have been obfuscated and/or having been lost/
destroyed. Even insurance details haven't been fully accessible, much
less the list of individual that should have been in those structure
but oddly on 9/11 were nowhere near them.

Go figure, that nothing seems the least bit fishy?

[Bast]

Watch the videos.
The proof it there.

NOW,....do you have any PROOF that shows they didn't exist.

Or can you even explain why WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane. fell.

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:13 -0500, "Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote:

>THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
>controlled demolition of buildings.
>Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a further
>developed form.
>The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE and
>ALUMINUM.
>Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and WHITE
>HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns like a
>hot knife cuts through butter.
>Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>structure.
>The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as it
>collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to cool and
>solidify.
>There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence of
>large quantities of molten iron!

Again... what large quantities of molten iron?

You mention a photo of molten iron. Ok. What leads you to believe it is iron?
Does this photograph show the "large quantities of molten iron"? How large are
we talking?

Shill #2
--
Your assertion proves nothing one way or the other.
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net>
Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:47:09 -0500

[DanielSan]

When combined with the other things such as contents of the building? Yes.

> It looks like mercury at best.
> ...Grey/silver and fluid
>
> Molten aluminum will NEVER glow, no matter how hot you get it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Uh, the molten steel that the first responders and Giulianni were
>>> talking about
>>
>> And they're experts on this, are they?
>>
>>>
>>> http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM
>>
>> And these? Experts?
>>
>>> http://youtu.be/8YaFGSPErKU
>>
>> And finally, an expert. And then the video cuts him off and goes back
>> to people that aren't experts.
>
>
>
>
> So your expert denies KNOWING about what Giulianni and the first responders
> who were actually THERE actually saw ?

Actually, that expert was cut off before the explanation. Would you
care to post the full video of his Q&A?

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:35:42 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 20, 11:23 am, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> On 1/21/2012 7:14 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>
>> > THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
>> > controlled demolition of buildings.
>>
>> No. Wrong
>>
>> > Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a further
>> > developed form.
>>
>> No. Wrong
>>
>> > The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE and
>> > ALUMINUM.
>> > Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and WHITE
>> > HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>> > The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns like a
>> > hot knife cuts through butter.
>> > Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>> > structure.
>> > The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as it
>> > collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to cool and
>> > solidify.
>> > There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence of
>> > large quantities of molten iron!
>>
>> There was no molten iron or steel.
>>
>> And there were no explosives
>

>But supposedly you're not an expert in anything, because you're not
>officially associated with any official expertise that's even remotely
>credible. So, what's your phony/bogus stake in this?


Ok Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”. You have a
point.

Where's your expert who says that there was molten iron? You know. Evidence.
Remember we've discussed this before?

FUD-Master #2
--
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning,
confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild
and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
Isaac Asimov - The Roving Mind (1983)

[DanielSan]

First, you claim that first responders and Giuliani saw "puddles of
molten steel" then you claim that "forensic evidence was systematically
carted away".

Isn't it a bit fishy that NONE OF YOUR CLAIMS CAN BE DOCUMENTED?

[HVAC]

On 1/20/2012 3:02 PM, Bast wrote:
>

>> Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
>> How's that imaginary family of yours again?
>
>
>
>
>
> Ignoring the facts didn't make the sun circle the earth either.
>
> Sister has still never been proven to be alive,....do you know where she has
> been hiding for over 10 years ?
> ....Since you say it's a fraud ? I guess you have PROOF no one died on 9/11
>
> You are a sockpuppet.
> And none of your fake accounts will ever prove me wrong.
>
> BTW you are a twit, HVAC/Hagar


Dude... You're pathetic. Just admit that you lied about your
sister dying (or hiding lol) on 9/11 and we can go back to
being great friends... Just like we used to be.

[Bast]

I would be pleased to let you see the findings of a THOROUGH INVESTIGATION
of 9/11,... by experts.

Help us get it done.
http://www.ae911truth.org

[DanielSan]

Your claim, your burden of proof. Provide hard evidence, not an edited
collection of clips.

>
> NOW,....do you have any PROOF that shows they didn't exist.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

> Or can you even explain why WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane. fell.

WTC 7 was hit by the twin towers.

[DanielSan]

But two investigations by experts reveal that none of the claims you're
making are true.

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:08:00 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>George152 wrote:

>> On 1/21/2012 7:14 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
>>> controlled demolition of buildings.
>>

>> No. Wrong

>>> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a
>>> further developed form.
>>
>>

>> No. Wrong

>>> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE
>>> and ALUMINUM.
>>> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and
>>> WHITE HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>>> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns
>>> like a hot knife cuts through butter.
>>> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>>> structure.
>>> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as
>>> it collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to
>>> cool and solidify.
>>> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence
>>> of large quantities of molten iron!
>>

>> There was no molten iron or steel.
>>
>> And there were no explosives
>
>
>
>

>It's documented
>
>http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
>
>

>Your denial of reality means NOTHING


That something molten ran out of a 110 story building is not denied, or even
surprising.

What is *questioned* is your Faith that it is molten "iron" and it must have
been caused by thermi(a)te. The question being "How the hell does anyone know
what the material is and what caused it to be in that state?" All you have is a
video. Got more? Provide it.

Why are you kOOks surprised that molten stuff will occur in a building fire?

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

[Government Shill #2]

How does Thermite/Thermate keep steel and iron molten for long periods of time?

Shill #2
--
"... we are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis.
The difficulty is to detach the framework of fact - the absolute undeniable
fact - from the embellishments of theorists and reporters."
Sherlock Holmes - Silver Blaze

[Bast]

Oh,...like STEEL ?
Hold on it was claimed in the original official fairytale that temperatures
only were high enough to "weaken" steel, not MELT IT

>
>> It looks like mercury at best.
>> ...Grey/silver and fluid
>>
>> Molten aluminum will NEVER glow, no matter how hot you get it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Uh, the molten steel that the first responders and Giulianni were
>>>> talking about
>>>
>>> And they're experts on this, are they?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM
>>>
>>> And these? Experts?
>>>
>>>> http://youtu.be/8YaFGSPErKU
>>>
>>> And finally, an expert. And then the video cuts him off and goes back
>>> to people that aren't experts.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So your expert denies KNOWING about what Giulianni and the first
>> responders who were actually THERE actually saw ?
>
> Actually, that expert was cut off before the explanation. Would you
> care to post the full video of his Q&A?

That "expert" was a Washington beurocrat who was not anywhere near NYC on
9/11
Why would you take his word over those who were actually there ?

...As the reporters asked.

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:13:03 -0500, "Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote:

>The 9/11 "ATTACK" - TEN YEARS, NO JUSTICE!
>
>The crime of the century that mass-murdered 3000 innocent Americans on
>September 11, 2001 remains unsolved. Many know this with certainty and some
>suspect it, but some Americans still believe the coverup lies and propaganda
>fed them through the government-manipulated corporate mass-media. To
>understand why, and know the truth, read on - -

<snip>


If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
still a foolish thing.
Me (with apologies to Anatole France)

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:07:56 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>
>http://www.ae911truth.org

>
>And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.

98% of the world...

Another troofer "fact".

Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net> wrote:

>In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,
> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>> On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
>> > You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>> >
>> > http://www.ae911truth.org
>> >
>> > And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>
>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>
>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>

>Well, why was there never a real investigation? Do I smell "cover-up"?
>as they say. "Follow the Money"

How does this answer the question?

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:37:17 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 20, 11:17 am, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> On 1/21/2012 3:07 AM, Bast wrote:> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove otherwise

>>
>> >http://www.ae911truth.org
>>
>> > And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>

>> Wrong !

>> Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
>> How's that imaginary family of yours again?
>

>I'm certain that you and the likes of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler
>always see things eye to eye.


Oh... so you are saying, Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth
Usenet”, that you have actually seen evidence for this 98% number?

Cool! Please share.

FUD-Master #2

[Government Shill #2]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:02:05 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

>
>
>George152 wrote:
>> On 1/21/2012 3:07 AM, Bast wrote:
>>> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>>> otherwise http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>
>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>> Wrong !
>> Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
>> How's that imaginary family of yours again?
>
>
>
>
>

>Ignoring the facts didn't make the sun circle the earth either.

Facts?

Where is this "fact" published?

Shill #2

[Bast]

Did you miss this link ?

http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE
or THIS
http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM

Why would you not believe people who were THERE ?
Are yau saying Giulianni is a liar ?

[Bast]

Because a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to liquify steel.
Even after HOURS of exposure

And the official fairytale has to rely on steel beams only weakening,....not
melting

So what is the yellow/white liquid,....melted twinkies ?

[Bast]

Uh,...politicans and beurocrats ? or Journalists ?
Since when have they proven to know ANYTHING.

[Government Shill #2]

What about the noise Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth
Usenet”?

Was that "carted away"?

There is a tiny shaped charge set off at the end of this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo

Hear it go BANG?

Why did not one hear the thousands of shaped charges kOOkers claim were set off
on 911?

>vast bulk of other materials prevented from being independently
>collected.

Just like every other investigation ever? How surprising!

> Lots of investigative forensic details as to the
>construction, maintenance, inert plus live floor loading and many
>safety related factors have been obfuscated and/or having been lost/
>destroyed.

Have they? Because you say so?

>Even insurance details haven't been fully accessible, much
>less the list of individual that should have been in those structure
>but oddly on 9/11 were nowhere near them.
>
>Go figure, that nothing seems the least bit fishy?

It might be. If you could show it was true.

FUD-Master #2

[Government Shill #2]

I agree. Where is the liquefied steel?

>And the official fairytale has to rely on steel beams only weakening,....not
>melting

Yes. So?

>So what is the yellow/white liquid,....melted twinkies ?

I don't know. How do you know?


Shill #2
--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance
to those of us who do.
Isaac Asimov

[raven1]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:51:23 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>
>raven1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:54:39 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
>> wrote:

>>
>>>
>>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,
>>>>> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
>>>>>>> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>>>>>>> otherwise
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, why was there never a real investigation?
>>>>

>>>> There was. Two of them, in fact: the 9/11 Commission, and the NIST
>>>> report. How many investigations would it take to satisfy the
>>>> "Truthers"? Likely answer: no investigation will ever satisfy them
>>>> unless the results agree with their preconception that the attacks
>>>> were an inside job.

>>>>
>>>>> Do I smell "cover-up"?
>>>>> as they say. "Follow the Money"

>>>>> This would not be the first time lies and murder were used to
>>>>> stampede the Americans into a war.
>>>>
>>>> Nor would it be the first time an Administration took opportunistic
>>>> advantage of an attack on American soil to drag us into war. Against a
>>>> nation, one might note, that was not involved.
>>>>
>>>>> Killing 3000 was nothing to the Warmongers. Just an opening "battle"
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> There's no evidence - none - that the Bush Administration played any
>>>> part in 9/11. What they did do was use it as a pretext for their
>>>> agenda. Unfounded conspiracy theories only distract attention from the
>>>> real malfeasance that went on, and that is a damned shame.

>>
>>> Would you like to see PROOFabout Oklahoma City
>>

>> I would like to see the RELEVANCE of Oklahoma City.

>Uhhh,..so actual interviews with those directly involved is not relevant ?

To what?

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dduttdexgPY
>
>Will you only believe it, if Popular Mechanics publish it ?

Do you believe everything you see in a Youtube video?

>That you deleted the link is VERY SUSPECT, that you prefer something you
>would rather not become public

Paranoid much?

[Government Shill #2]

Shows *something* running out of the building. How do you know it's "iron"?

> or THIS
>http://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM
>Why would you not believe people who were THERE ?

How do these guys know it was steel? Did they have it tested?

>Are yau saying Giulianni is a liar ?

Would it matter if I did? What does that have to do with the question. Someone
name Giulianni is irrelevant to me. I think he was the mayor of an American
town, or something...

The question being "How do we know that what you claim is steel is, in fact,
steel?"

You (and the truth movement in general) claim it is steel (or iron). Ok. Show us
how you know that. Backup the claim.

Shill #2

[Bast]

Have you any proof the official fairytale ever happened ?

....By the same people who lied there were WMD's in IRAQ, OR,...that there
is no depression,.....OR,....that thorough SOPA the internet has to be shut
down to stop terrorism,....OR NDAA has to take ALL your rights away to stop
the same Al Queda NATO/U.S. put in power in Libya.

>
>>
>> NOW,....do you have any PROOF that shows they didn't exist.
>
> Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
>
>> Or can you even explain why WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane. fell.
>
> WTC 7 was hit by the twin towers.

NO IT F-ing wasn't hit by anything, and barely showed any outward damage at
all

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

It was still standing almost a half day later,....whn BBC news leaked script
of the story over 20 minutes too soon that it was falling down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s

YOU ARE A LYING SHILL AND CAN TELL LARRY TO BITE ME.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 20, 2:35 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a tiny shaped charge set off at the end of this videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo

>
> Hear it go BANG?
>
> Why did not one hear the thousands of shaped charges kOOkers claim were set off
> on 911?
>
> >vast bulk of other materials prevented from being independently
> >collected.
>
> Just like every other investigation ever? How surprising!
>
> > Lots of investigative forensic details as to the
> >construction, maintenance, inert plus live floor loading and many
> >safety related factors have been obfuscated and/or having been lost/
> >destroyed.
>
> Have they? Because you say so?
>
> >Even insurance details haven't been fully accessible, much
> >less the list of individual that should have been in those structure
> >but oddly on 9/11 were nowhere near them.
>
> >Go figure, that nothing seems the least bit fishy?
>
> It might be. If you could show it was true.
>
> FUD-Master #2
> --
> I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning,
> confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild
> and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous
> something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
>  Isaac Asimov - The Roving Mind (1983)

ZNR certified FUD-masters like yourself are all alike. You just can't
stand anyone having any interpretation other than your own. GW Bush,
Dick Cheney, Kissinger and Hitler each had the exact same affliction.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 20, 2:26 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> Government Shill #2 wrote:

> > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:13 -0500, "Freedom Man" <freespe...@4eva.com>

>  or THIShttp://youtu.be/cCdRA09pztM

>
> Why would you not believe people who were THERE ?
> Are yau saying Giulianni is a liar ?

ZNR certified FUD-masters like our resident brain-fart "Government
Shill #2" and a good dozen other phony/bogus names, like to topic/
author stalk and selectively obfuscate as to anything that upsets
their mainstream status quo.

http://translate.google.com/#

[Brad Guth]

Zionist Nazis that seem to favor Republicans and especially Semite
Republicans, can't hardly be trusted about anything.

[Bast]

Since it burns at thousands of degrees, and doesn't need air to burn (Iron
Oxide provides the oxygen/oxidant)
It could and did continue to burn under the rubble for weeks.
Pools of molten metal/lava in the basements of all three towers for weeks
after 9/11 are documented fact.
Yet the official fairytale claims any "Fire" only was hot enough to weaken
steel.


How did it get hotter AFTER it fell ?

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:35:42 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 20, 11:23 am, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

>>> On 1/21/2012 7:14 AM, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in
>>>> the controlled demolition of buildings.
>>>

>>> No. Wrong

>>>
>>>> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a
>>>> further developed form.
>>>

>>> No. Wrong

>>>
>>>> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON
>>>> OXIDE and ALUMINUM.
>>>> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and
>>>> WHITE HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>>>> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel
>>>> columns like a hot knife cuts through butter.
>>>> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>>>> structure.
>>>> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers
>>>> as it collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks
>>>> to cool and solidify.
>>>> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the
>>>> presence of large quantities of molten iron!
>>>

>>> There was no molten iron or steel.
>>>
>>> And there were no explosives
>>

>> But supposedly you're not an expert in anything, because you're not
>> officially associated with any official expertise that's even remotely
>> credible. So, what's your phony/bogus stake in this?
>
>
> Ok Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet". You
> have a point.
>
> Where's your expert who says that there was molten iron? You know.
> Evidence. Remember we've discussed this before?
>
> FUD-Master #2


You asked, so here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

[George152]

On 1/21/2012 8:35 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> But supposedly you're not an expert in anything, because you're not
> officially associated with any official expertise that's even remotely
> credible. So, what's your phony/bogus stake in this?

Supposedly ???
WTF are you on ?

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:02:05 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> George152 wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2012 3:07 AM, Bast wrote:
>>>> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>>>> otherwise http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>>
>>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>> Wrong !
>>> Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
>>> How's that imaginary family of yours again?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ignoring the facts didn't make the sun circle the earth either.
>
> Facts?
>
> Where is this "fact" published?
>
> Shill #2

http://www.ae911truth.org

[George152]

On 1/21/2012 9:08 AM, Bast wrote:
> It's documented http://youtu.be/OmuzyWC60eE Your denial of reality
> means NOTHING

Wrong !

[George152]

On 1/21/2012 11:32 AM, Bast wrote:
> Because a kerosene fire does NOT burn hot enough to liquify steel.
> Even after HOURS of exposure And the official fairytale has to rely on
> steel beams only weakening,....not melting So what is the yellow/white
> liquid,....melted twinkies ?

No but building fires -do- burn for hours and heating steel weakens it
to a point where it is no longer capable of maintaining structural
integrity.
You saw the jet fuel burning in those large fireballs

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:14:07 -0800, "Mr. K" <geor...@toast.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <abOdnSCRIpSTG4TS...@bt.com>,
>> Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/01/2012 14:07, Bast wrote:
>>>> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>>>> otherwise
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>>
>>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you tell us what research that backs up your belief?
>>>
>>> I am sure such an important piece of research is available online.
>>>
>>> What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?
>>
>> Well, why was there never a real investigation? Do I smell "cover-up"?
>> as they say. "Follow the Money"
>
> How does this answer the question?
>
> Shill #2

It answers the question as well or better than the offical fairytale.
Which has been shot full of holes repeatedly over the past decade.

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:37:17 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 20, 11:17 am, George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/21/2012 3:07 AM, Bast wrote:> You are a moron to belive ANY of
>>> these LIES when the facts prove otherwise
>>>
>>>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>
>>>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>>>
>>> Wrong !
>>> Quoting kook sites does nothing for your claim..
>>> How's that imaginary family of yours again?
>>
>> I'm certain that you and the likes of GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Hitler
>> always see things eye to eye.
>
>
> Oh... so you are saying, Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG
> / "Guth Usenet", that you have actually seen evidence for this 98%
> number?
>
> Cool! Please share.
>
> FUD-Master #2

Nope,..but you can ask your neighbors.
And they will tell you how silly the offical fairytale is, and question your
sanity if you still believe any part of it.

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:07:56 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> You are a moron to belive ANY of these LIES when the facts prove
>> otherwise
>>
>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>
>> And 98% of the world now believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
>
> 98% of the world...
>
> Another troofer "fact".
>
> Shill #2

And your fact is ?

[Bast]

Lets try 9/11

>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dduttdexgPY
>>
>> Will you only believe it, if Popular Mechanics publish it ?
>
> Do you believe everything you see in a Youtube video?

When it's a copy of LIVE TV feeds, and actual interviews of
eyewitnesses,...YES I DO

I'll bet you think computer generated animations are MORE TRUE

>
>> That you deleted the link is VERY SUSPECT, that you prefer something
>> you would rather not become public
>
> Paranoid much?

Nope, I don't even think the Al Queda Boogie Man is after us,....how 'bout
you ?

[Tony Dragon]

On 20/01/2012 21:00, Bast wrote:
> Tony Dragon wrote:

>> On 20/01/2012 18:14, Freedom Man wrote:
>>> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives in the
>>> controlled demolition of buildings.

>>> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a
>>> further developed form.

>>> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON OXIDE
>>> and ALUMINUM.
>>> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide and
>>> WHITE HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>>> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel columns
>>> like a hot knife cuts through butter.
>>> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of the
>>> structure.
>>> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC towers as
>>> it collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that took weeks to
>>> cool and solidify.
>>> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the presence
>>> of large quantities of molten iron!
>>>
>>>
>>

>> I wonder why the steel works have so much trouble with steel& iron

>> solidifying if it can stay molten for so long.
>
>
>
> Simple,...tell them to use Thermite/Thermate,...it's worked great for the
> military for decades.
>
>

I wonder why this *widely known fact* has escaped them.

[Bast]

I don't blame any group for 9/11 debunkers.

Stupidity and blind faith in leaders/doctorine, has existed throughout
history,....as many burned witches prove.

[Bast]

You really should look at the other posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

>
>
>> And the official fairytale has to rely on steel beams only
>> weakening,....not melting
>
>
> Yes. So?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

>
>
>> So what is the yellow/white liquid,....melted twinkies ?
>
> I don't know. How do you know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM



>
>
> Shill #2

[Government Shill #2]

Question: What sort of sample does that 98% refer to?

Answer: Well, why was there never a real investigation? Do I smell "cover-up"?


Hmm... Nope. I don't think so.

Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman

[Bast]

BINGO,....most of any fuel would have burned up in the fireballs, and any
heat went into the atmosphere

So what KEPT the building burning enough to weaken the steel ?

[raven1]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:24:25 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>

OK, let's see you explain the relevance.

[raven1]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:10:33 -0500, "Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>
>

I've never seen a supposed "hole" that hasn't already been refuted to
death. Got anything new to bring to the table?

[Government Shill #2]

I asked my neighbours. They said you and Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,
BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" are batshit crazy for Believing stuff without any
supporting evidence.

[Government Shill #2]

Ah well! If it says so on a kOOker page it must be true!

[Government Shill #2]

My fact is, me and the rest of the 98% don't buy your numbers without the
supporting evidence.

Please supply some evidence.

Note - kOOkerpages are not evidence.

Shill #2

[Bast]

Government Shill #2 wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:43:45 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
> <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 20, 1:20 pm, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On 1/20/2012 1:18 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> DanielSan wrote:

>>>>> On 1/20/2012 1:00 PM, Bast wrote:
>>>>>> Tony Dragon wrote:

>>>>>>> On 20/01/2012 18:14, Freedom Man wrote:
>>>>>>>> THERMITE or THERMATE is an incendiary used with high explosives
>>>>>>>> in the controlled demolition of buildings.

>>>>>>>> Thermate is a more advanced form of thermite. "Nanothermite" is a
>>>>>>>> further developed form.

>>>>>>>> The primary ingredients of these incendiary substances are IRON
>>>>>>>> OXIDE and ALUMINUM.
>>>>>>>> Once initiated, these components react to produce aluminum oxide
>>>>>>>> and WHITE HOT MOLTEN IRON.
>>>>>>>> The molten iron burns through the building's supporting steel
>>>>>>>> columns like a hot knife cuts through butter.
>>>>>>>> Explosives are then detonated to cause the complete collapse of
>>>>>>>> the structure.
>>>>>>>> The molten iron was photographed flowing from one of the WTC
>>>>>>>> towers as it collapsed, and formed pools under the debris that
>>>>>>>> took weeks to cool and solidify.
>>>>>>>> There is NO OTHER scientifically credible explanation for the
>>>>>>>> presence of large quantities of molten iron!
>>>

>>>>>>> I wonder why the steel works have so much trouble with steel& iron
>>>>>>> solidifying if it can stay molten for so long.
>>>
>>>>>> Simple,...tell them to use Thermite/Thermate,...it's worked great
>>>>>> for the military for decades.
>>>

>>>>> How does one use thermite to cut vertical support structures?
>>>
>>>> Fill the hollow column, then use shape charges to do the actual
>>>> cutting so a building can fall into it's actual footprint
>>>> It's all here, and explains how it can be done
>>>
>>>> http://www.ae911truth.org
>>>
>>> It could be done that way. Is there any evidence that it *WAS* done
>>> that way? Where are the shape charges? Where are those devices? Do
>>> you have any evidence that those devices exist?
>>
>> Most of the forensic evidence was systematically carted away and the
>
>

> What about the noise Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG /
> "Guth Usenet"?

>
> Was that "carted away"?
>
> There is a tiny shaped charge set off at the end of this video
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo
>
> Hear it go BANG?
>
> Why did not one hear the thousands of shaped charges kOOkers claim were
> set off on 911?
>
>
>> vast bulk of other materials prevented from being independently
>> collected.
>
>
> Just like every other investigation ever? How surprising!
>
>
>> Lots of investigative forensic details as to the
>> construction, maintenance, inert plus live floor loading and many
>> safety related factors have been obfuscated and/or having been lost/
>> destroyed.
>
>
> Have they? Because you say so?
>
>
>> Even insurance details haven't been fully accessible, much
>> less the list of individual that should have been in those structure
>> but oddly on 9/11 were nowhere near them.
>>
>> Go figure, that nothing seems the least bit fishy?
>
>
> It might be. If you could show it was true.

You can't show that the offical fairytale was true.

...only a conspiracy theory that a few saudis allegedly were involved.
Where is their signed confessions ? or actual video of them in a plane
cockpit ?

And why do a few of those Saudi's claim they are still alive and had no part
of 9/11 ?


Bush & Rumsfeld said they did it, right ?,....and that is all the proof you
need ?.

Same guy's who lied about WMD's and got us into a needless war ?

http://youtu.be/bDeYUBtFIzI

THAT is your proof ?

....Would you like to buy some magic beans ? Or help A Nigerian widow of a
deceased dictator get her money ?

[Government Shill #2]

I see!

Firemen?

Experts?

Uh huh.