PHYSICAL PROOF of the 9/11 INSIDE JOB
Freedom Man
Global Research, April 3, 2009
Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions of this important and
carefully researched article. The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25)
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.Ryan,
Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.Gourley, Bradley
R. Larsen
The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-4125
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we
have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World
Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from
separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show
marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a
Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy,
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive
spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The
red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are
largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like
structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone
demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and
aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a
DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at
approximately 430 �C, far below the normal ignition temperature for
conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed
in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray
chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted
thermitic material and highly energetic.
Global Research Editor's Note
The definition of thermitic material:
A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum
powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an
intense heat.
The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal
oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite
reaction. (Wikipedia)
What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
"Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly
to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction
is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are
combined and ignited. Ignition itself requires extremely high
temperatures."
Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching
implications of these findings.
Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11
attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of
the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings
also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
Below are selected excerpts of the article. Readers can also link to
the complete text, by clicking the link
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
EXCERPTS
INTRODUCTION
The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11,
2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted
thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of
life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and
radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other
reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave
importance.
A great deal of effort has been put forth by various
government-sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large
part, to the reports released by FEMA [1] and NIST [2]. Other studies
of the destruction have been less well publicized but are no less
important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of
that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day
[3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused
attention on the remaining physical material, and on available
photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public
hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three
skyscrapers.
CONCLUSIONS
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers
in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have
applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale
structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their
red component. The red material is most interesting and has the
following characteristics:
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon.
Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes
present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present
in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and
detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of
components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently
concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas
the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of
the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as
nanothermite or super-thermite.
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio
consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples
was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition
material whereas elemental iron was not.
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red
material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously
at a temperature of approximately 430 �C, with a rather narrow
exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a
known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the
presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material
is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900
�C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 �C, we
found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue,
indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since
the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these
shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron
content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a
high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have
an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and
aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical
signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids
produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the
signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic
substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite
formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and
thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these
chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an
energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes
observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the
classic thermite reaction.
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the
red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted
thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly
energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
(emphasis added)
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust by
researcher
Friday Apr 3rd, 2009 7:30 PM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
Site: www.STJ911.org
Email: stj...@gmail.com
Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists
and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction
of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust
itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its
destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the
material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these
chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly
energetic."
The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put
forth by critics of the official reports.
At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to
understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings
of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' --
an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.
Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings'
destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of
these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another
incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the
buildings without notice.
NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They
concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the
building failures.
Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST
has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any
other accelerant or explosive.
"We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative
procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They
haven't."
Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.
Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he
thinks NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional
thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly
engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed
for just this type of application."
Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for
the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building
failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the
extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of
micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as
behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption".
"One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said,
"was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1,
2 & 7."
NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of
the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."
Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University
and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature,
Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began
researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.
Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a
magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident
survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted
to the magnet.
"That was very odd to me," he said.
Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially
described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.
But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material
would take longer.
Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels
Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for
over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such
as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and
the Journal of Physical Chemistry A.
Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the
September 11th attack. and says has two answers.
"First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask
me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer
them, 'I was on your side'."
Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of
the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he
hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed
by the mainstream public and media."
And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters
Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements
in 2004, and was consequently fired.
"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been
shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the
dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or
something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily
available to just anyone."
In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial
explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law
requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.
In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging
the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil
Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of
Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges
have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group,
The Journal of 9/11 Studies
Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of
over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001
attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.
For information: http://www.stj911.com
http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThe...
Government Shill #2
If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
still a foolish thing.
Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
mr.smartypants
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote:
I first was suspicious when a crime of this magnitude was not CSI'd.
Look who "benefitted" . Of course we may never know the whole story.
but, the government's version are so unbelievable.
--
money; what a concept!
george
> The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
> describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
> taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its
> destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
> and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the
> material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these
> chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly
> energetic."
>
They are paint chips FFS.
Iarnrod
<snip kkkookerkrap>
Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.
Iarnrod
> I first was suspicious when a crime of this magnitude was not CSI'd.
> Look who "benefitted" . Of course we may never know the whole story.
> but, the government's version are so unbelievable.
Name one thing, kook. I'll give you an education.
Electra
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>
> If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
> still a foolish thing.
> Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
I need to know how they moved several trailer loads of explosives into
the WTC complex and stowed it away without anyone noticing.
Must have been one mother fucker of a dry wall and paint job to cover
it up.
Electra
Not if you also think that the lunar landings were done on Kubrick's
2001, A Space Odyssey sound stage at Pinewood, while Neil and Buzz's
first landing was a plot instigated by those nasty Democrats to cover
up that nasty shunt that brother Teddy had around the same time.
After all, I have a copy of a paper from those days and the top says
"MAN ON MOON" while the bottom has "Senator Kennedy in Accident At
Chappaquiddick" .
It's all part of the big scam.
Iarnrod
Until someone explains to the kooks that the "scam" had no point.
Chappaquiddick kept Teddy from ever being president and it didn't
really get covered up.
Animal03-
And shortly have you drank the kooktard koolaid
> Look who "benefitted" .
Who is benefiting from the 911 kooktardary? The few that sell their
DVDs and books to the gullible and ignorant kooktards.
> Of course we may never know the whole story.
AS long as you keep believing in the same old debunked myths
> but, the government's version are so unbelievable.
Only to the willfully ignorant
BDK
says...
So you're posting a new version of the same old kooktardic nonsense.
Yawwwwwwnnnnnn!
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
BDK
671366...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, hond...@excite.com says...
Details: The Kryptonite of kooktards. Shoots down their insane claims
like bug spray kills bugs.
Sometimes, I think the bugs are smarter than some of the kooktards.
Al Dykes
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
Freedom Man
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
> wrote:
>
> If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
> still a foolish thing.
> Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
"Government Shill" (which is literally true here) is among those government
coverup shills that, unable to refute the scientific facts reported, resorts
in childish frustration to ad-hominem attack. I suspect they are told to do
this in hopes it will persuade gullible sheeple that facts are not facts
when the presenter of those facts is smeared.
> I need to know how they moved several trailer loads of explosives into
the WTC complex and stowed it away without anyone noticing.
For weeks, perhaps months preceding the "attacks," there was "construction"
work underway that shut down various sections of the buildings, first one
section then another. It is easy for government agents or organized crime
related contractors to put on workmen's uniforms and do their murderous
dirty work undetected.
> Must have been one mother fucker of a dry wall and paint job to cover it
> up.
Yes, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it. The question is who
financed it? - Larry Silverstein and Adolf Giuliani? Bush and Cheney? The
CIA and Mossad? We the taxpayers?
Freedom Man
On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>
> <snip kkkookerkrap>
>
> Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
> been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.
Sorry, denier of scientifically proven facts, but the physical evidence of
the presence of demolition explosives in those buildings can no longer be
credibly denied. If you have true proof to the contrary, present it here.
You won't, because you can't! All we can get from you is frustrated,
childish name-calling!
In addition, the laws of physics are inviolate - or will you deny that too?
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 Trade Center
(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 September 11,
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 steel core
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 of gravity
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 per second
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 is falling
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 in any
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) energy in
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 is converted
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 whatever is
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 x H)
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 has a
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 32 x 144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs 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 in order
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 the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
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 air resistance
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 object to
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 just over
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 frictionlessly 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 the WTC
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
Government Shill #2
>"Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
>> still a foolish thing.
>> Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>
>"Government Shill" (which is literally true here) is among those government
>coverup shills that, unable to refute the scientific facts reported, resorts
>in childish frustration to ad-hominem attack.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
positions.
Thomas Jefferson
--
Shill #2
BDK
says...
> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
> > still a foolish thing.
> > Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>
> "Government Shill" (which is literally true here) is among those government
> coverup shills that, unable to refute the scientific facts reported, resorts
> in childish frustration to ad-hominem attack. I suspect they are told to do
> this in hopes it will persuade gullible sheeple that facts are not facts
> when the presenter of those facts is smeared.
BWHAHAHA! We've told you door clueless, gullible kooktards to talk to an
engineer, a real expert, for years, but you never do. Your religious
faith is too weak to withstand any real evidence, so you stick with
kookpages that fit your agenda.
>
> > I need to know how they moved several trailer loads of explosives into
> the WTC complex and stowed it away without anyone noticing.
>
> For weeks, perhaps months preceding the "attacks," there was "construction"
> work underway that shut down various sections of the buildings, first one
> section then another. It is easy for government agents or organized crime
> related contractors to put on workmen's uniforms and do their murderous
> dirty work undetected.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! Insanity, you have arrived.
>
> > Must have been one mother fucker of a dry wall and paint job to cover it
> > up.
>
> Yes, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it. The question is who
> financed it? - Larry Silverstein and Adolf Giuliani? Bush and Cheney? The
> CIA and Mossad? We the taxpayers?
You poor deluded kooktard. Silverstein was a (financial) victim. He lost
a bundle.
BDK
says...
In reality, proof of your gullible kooktardery.
Al Dykes
I BELIEVE FREEDOM FRIES HAS ME BLOCKED. PLEASE REPOST THIS MESSAGE SO
HE CAN SEE MY REPSONCE TO HIS ARITHMETIC ERROR.
In article <hbvfaf$p0g$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Freedom Man <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>
>
>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 Trade Center
>(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.
>
>
>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 air resistance
>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 object to
>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 just over
>200 mph.
>
>But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
You are wrong.
Your mistake is that the 9 second interval wasn't from 1300 ft. It was
from about 1,000 ft. It was the measured fall time from some beam
from the impact zone. That would be something from the 78-84th floor,
not 1300 ft. Call it 80% of the full height; 1,040 ft (320m).
Free fall from 1,040ft is 8.07 seconds and v in the last second is
abouy 240ft/sec so that extra second is plenty to account for aero
drag.
SOURCE:
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and
9 seconds (WTC 2)-speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped
from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST
estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to
strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the
towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately
9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1)
precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence,
and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades,
N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave
transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)... [2]
You get an "F" in your High School physics paper.
Iarnrod
> "Electra" <honda9...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
> > still a foolish thing.
> > Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>
> "Government Shill" (which is literally true here) is among those government
> coverup shills that, unable to refute the scientific facts reported, resorts
> in childish frustration to ad-hominem attack. I suspect they are told to do
> this in hopes it will persuade gullible sheeple that facts are not facts
> when the presenter of those facts is smeared.
>
> > I need to know how they moved several trailer loads of explosives into
>
> the WTC complex and stowed it away without anyone noticing.
>
> For weeks, perhaps months preceding the "attacks," there was "construction"
> work underway that shut down various sections of the buildings,
No, there was not, you incredibly stupid liar. No sections were "shut
down;" you're just lying.
>, first one
> section then another. It is easy for government agents or organized crime
> related contractors to put on workmen's uniforms and do their murderous
> dirty work undetected.
It's much easier for brain damaged kookshits like you to just make
shit up.
> > Must have been one mother fucker of a dry wall and paint job to cover it
> > up.
>
> Yes, but Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it. The question is who
> financed it? - Larry Silverstein and Adolf Giuliani? Bush and Cheney? The
> CIA and Mossad? We the taxpayers?
Nope, it was UBL.
He's admitted it, Reality Fighter.
You lose.
Iarnrod
> "Electra" <honda9...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7b27f99c-8c3b-45a7...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 7:25 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 1:37 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>
> > <snip kkkookerkrap>
>
> > Sorry, Reality Fighter, but "Inside Job" controlled demolition has
> > been proven to be a complete physical impossibility.
>
> Sorry, denier of scientifically proven facts,
Oh the irony.
I embrace the facts; you reject them.
NO CD explosives went off. FACT,
> but the physical evidence of
> the presence of demolition explosives in those buildings can no longer be
> credibly denied.
There is NO evidence of any demolition explosives, Reality Fighter.
> If you have true proof to the contrary, present it here.
Done. None went off. None was found. Case closeed.
> You won't, because you can't!
I did.
> All we can get from you is frustrated,
> childish name-calling!
Oh the irony!
> In addition, the laws of physics are inviolate - or will you deny that too?
Holy crap, your theory DEPENDS on violating the laws of physics.
Laws of physics prove me right.
>
> SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
> GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
> EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
Six lies in the first sentence completely invalidate anything you say,
Reality Fighter.
Get a brain,
slika
"Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
--
They could have done it without you knowing, yes.
You're obviously a retarded human being, so like, it wouldn't be that
complicated in the first place.
Now, check here, retard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnLMAzUIb5M&feature=player_embedded
Listen closely.
slika
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qgg6e59unhjttp6gr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:54:34 -0400, "Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote:
>
>>"Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
>>> still a foolish thing.
>>> Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>>
>>"Government Shill" (which is literally true here) is among those government
>>coverup shills that, unable to refute the scientific facts reported, resorts
>>in childish frustration to ad-hominem attack.
>
>
> Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible
> positions.
> Thomas Jefferson
A coward is still a coward. In this case, personified by Gov Shill.
Freedom Man
news:4ae42406$1...@news.x-privat.org...
Indeed! And as we all can see, he is capable of nothing more than childish
name-calling and whining ridicule.
BDK
Somehow, you've confused the words coward and sane person. Typical of
the gullible kooktard type of derangement.
I guess you can't help it.
BDK
says...
And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
would laugh at.
chinagreenelvis
> ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
> would laugh at.
And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
continue?
george
If the kook claims are not replied to there are some out there who
would attatch some credibility to those often repeated error ridden
claims.
You obviously have a dog in the fight and from your message it appears
to be on the kook side of reality.
Come back in another 6 months and watch the kooks still making the
same impossible claims.
BDK
@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, chinagr...@gmail.com says...
Because goofing on kooks is fun!
Animal03-
<sigh> another kooktard that believes "if it is on youtube", it must be true
slika
"chinagreenelvis" <chinagr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42637b13-4a72-4029...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
That's how Gov Shill operates, so he doesn't have to discuss facts.
Typical technique for a coward.
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:_a2Fm.10563$86....@newsfe15.iad...
Funny how you wouldn't say that about youtube videos "debunking 9/11 myths", eh?
Seriously, retard, who are you trying to fool?
BDK
So you consider anyone not insane enough to believe in 911 "troof" to be
a coward?
Of course you do.
Animal03-
<YAWN> I don't rely on Youttube for evidence
......kooktard..................I rely on qualified
experts.........something kooktards like yourself avoid like the plague
Patrick Keenan
>
> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> If Freedom Man says a foolish thing fifty million times, it is
>> still a foolish thing.
>> Me (with apologies to Anatole France)
>
> I need to know how they moved several trailer loads of explosives into
> the WTC complex and stowed it away without anyone noticing.
Especially considering that the WTC had already been the target of an attack
with explosives - a truck bomb arranged by one of UBL's mentors. That kind
of thing tends to cause an increase in security screening.
You'd think out of all the security people and workers, somebody would have
had a pang of either guilt or bravado and mentioned it.
> Must have been one mother fucker of a dry wall and paint job to cover
> it up.
And to keep it from acting or sounding like explosives when used.
Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility
for it and were tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the
thousands of conspirators who have remained silent and undetected all this
time.
-pk
chinagreenelvis
I can tell you from personal experience as a neutral observer and a
skeptic for both sides of the argument that anyone curious enough to
examine these claims is not going to be dissuaded by watching an army
of naysayers toss about the word "kooktard" again and again. You're
doing zero good by tearing down the conspiracy theorists with
kindergarten insults, and are in fact giving the theorist position
more credibility by making yourselves look like a bunch of monkeys who
throw shit instead of offering civility. Your wolfpack insistence on
ridicule paints a picture of an agenda amongst your peers: "Silence
the theorists at all costs and prevent them from being heard by being
louder than they are."
Anyway, whatever. Pay no attention to my disruption to your routine...
Government Shill #2
We did facts years ago. Over and over and over... until it became boring.
You nutjobs keep presenting the same "facts" as evidence that again and
again. These "facts" are idiotic. The fail under the simplest test. What's
left but to ridicule those who buy such "facts"?
--
Shill #2
Government Shill #2
>In article <4ae4...@news.x-privat.org>, sl...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> "chinagreenelvis" <chinagr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:42637b13-4a72-4029...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>> >> And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
>> >> ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
>> >> would laugh at.
>> >
>> > And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
>> > you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
>> > records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
>> > an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
>> > continue?
>>
>> That's how Gov Shill operates, so he doesn't have to discuss facts.
>>
>> Typical technique for a coward.
>>
>>
>>
>
>So you consider anyone not insane enough to believe in 911 "troof" to be
>a coward?
>
>Of course you do.
Because you need courage to say stupid things in a public forum over and
over again.
--
Shill #2
With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
Friedrich von Schiller (1759 - 1805)
BDK
gov....@gmail.com says...
I guess I wasn't thinking like a kook. Shame on me!
Freedom Man
news:42637b13-4a72-4029...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
This is all the result of an elaborately planned and executed act of
inhumanity by a fascist conspiracy, and the following elaborate coverup.
Those among us intelligent and psychologically free enough to realize and
accept this truth want the world to know the truth and the mass-murderers
brought to justice. Part of the coverup is the use of the paid shills that
post here. Some that deny the conspiracy are simply weak-minded people in
serious psychological denial, unwilling and unable to confront the horrible
truth.
Freedom Man
On Oct 25, 3:11 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:27 am, chinagreenelvis <chinagreenel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
> > > ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
> > > would laugh at.
>
> > And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
> > you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
> > records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
> > an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
> > continue?
>
> If the kook claims are not replied to there are some out there who
> would attatch some credibility to those often repeated error ridden
> claims.
That the public at large will wake up to the truth about 9/11 is what the
controllers of these coverup shills most fear. Funny that those aware of the
conspiracy are able to cite convincing scientific evidence in their favor,
while the shills and fools in denial can only, in their infantile
frustration, do no more than childish name-calling.
> You obviously have a dog in the fight and from your message it appears
> to be on the kook side of reality.
> Come back in another 6 months and watch the kooks still making the
> same impossible claims.
I can tell you from personal experience as a neutral observer and a
skeptic for both sides of the argument that anyone curious enough to
examine these claims is not going to be dissuaded by watching an army
of naysayers toss about the word "kooktard" again and again. You're
doing zero good by tearing down the conspiracy theorists with
kindergarten insults, and are in fact giving the theorist position
more credibility by making yourselves look like a bunch of monkeys who
throw shit instead of offering civility. Your wolfpack insistence on
ridicule paints a picture of an agenda amongst your peers: "Silence
the theorists at all costs and prevent them from being heard by being
louder than they are."
--
You hit the nail on the head!
The theorists now have sufficient scientific proof of the validity of their
position.
The denialists and shills have nothing but their kindergarten insults.
Iarnrod
> "chinagreenelvis" <chinagreenel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:42637b13-4a72-4029...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
> >> ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
> >> would laugh at.
>
> > And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
> > you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
> > records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
> > an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
> > continue?
>
> This is all the result of an elaborately planned and executed act of
> inhumanity by a fascist conspiracy, and the following elaborate coverup.
> Those among us intelligent and psychologically free enough to realize and
> accept this truth want the world to know the truth and the mass-murderers
> brought to justice.
Blahblahblah. Hey Reality Fighter, you have yet to explain how the
FACT that your delusional lies about your cartoon magic silent and
invisible explosives and gravity defying thermite have been proven
PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE fits into your whole presentation here.
<snicker>
Iarnrod
> "chinagreenelvis" <chinagreenel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:306f6f88-61c9-49ec...@z29g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 3:11 pm, george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:27 am, chinagreenelvis <chinagreenel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
> > > > ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
> > > > would laugh at.
>
> > > And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
> > > you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
> > > records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
> > > an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
> > > continue?
>
> > If the kook claims are not replied to there are some out there who
> > would attatch some credibility to those often repeated error ridden
> > claims.
>
> That the public at large will wake up to the truth about 9/11 is what the
> controllers of these coverup shills most fear.
Hey, Reality Fighter, how does the FACT that your claims are
physically impossible fit into this whole thing?
mr.smartypants
BDK <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote:
> In article <hbt0m2$tk8$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, lib...@once.net
> says...
> > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
> > Global Research, April 3, 2009
> >
> > Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions of this important and
> > carefully researched article. The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)
> >
> > Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> > Center Catastrophe
> >
> > pp.7-31 (25)
> > Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.Ryan,
> > Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.Gourley, Bradley
> > R. Larsen
> >
> > The Open Chemical Physics Journal
> > Volume 2
> > ISSN: 1874-4125
> > doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
> >
> > Complete Article
> > http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7
> > TOCPJ.SGM
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we
> > have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World
> > Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from
> > separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show
> > marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a
> > Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
> > WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
> > properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy,
> > scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive
> > spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The
> > red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are
> > largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like
> > structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone
> > demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and
> > aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a
> > DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at
> > approximately 430 �C, far below the normal ignition temperature for
> > conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed
> > in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray
> > chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted
> > thermitic material and highly energetic.
> >
> > Global Research Editor's Note
> > The definition of thermitic material:
> >
> > A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum
> > powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an
> > intense heat.
> >
> > The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> > Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
> > Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> >
> > Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal
> > oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite
> > reaction. (Wikipedia)
> >
> > What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
> >
> > "Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly
> > to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction
> > is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are
> > combined and ignited. Ignition itself requires extremely high
> > temperatures."
> >
> > Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching
> > implications of these findings.
> >
> > Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11
> > attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of
> > the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings
> > also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
> >
> > Below are selected excerpts of the article. Readers can also link to
> > the complete text, by clicking the link
> >
> > Complete Article
> > http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7
> > TOCPJ.SGM
> >
> > EXCERPTS
> >
> > INTRODUCTION
> >
> > The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11,
> > 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted
> > thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of
> > life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and
> > radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other
> > reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave
> > importance.
> >
> > A great deal of effort has been put forth by various
> > government-sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large
> > part, to the reports released by FEMA [1] and NIST [2]. Other studies
> > of the destruction have been less well publicized but are no less
> > important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of
> > that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day
> > [3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused
> > attention on the remaining physical material, and on available
> > photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public
> > hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three
> > skyscrapers.
> >
> > CONCLUSIONS
> >
> > We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers
> > in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have
> > applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale
> > structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their
> > red component. The red material is most interesting and has the
> > following characteristics:
> >
> > 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon.
> > Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes
> > present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
> >
> > 2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present
> > in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and
> > detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
> >
> > 3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of
> > components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently
> > concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
> >
> > 4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas
> > the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of
> > the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as
> > nanothermite or super-thermite.
> >
> > 5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio
> > consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples
> > was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition
> > material whereas elemental iron was not.
> >
> > 6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red
> > material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
> >
> > 7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously
> > at a temperature of approximately 430 �C, with a rather narrow
> > exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a
> > known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the
> > presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material
> > is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900
> > �C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
> >
> > 8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 �C, we
> > found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue,
> > indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since
> > the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these
> > shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron
> > content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a
> > high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
> > heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
> >
> > 9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have
> > an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and
> > aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical
> > signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids
> > produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the
> > signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
> >
> > 10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic
> > substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite
> > formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and
> > thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these
> > chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an
> > energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes
> > observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the
> > classic thermite reaction.
> >
> > Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the
> > red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted
> > thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly
> > energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
> > (emphasis added)
> >
> > Complete Article
> >
> > http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7
> > TOCPJ.SGM
> >
> > Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust by
> > researcher
> > Friday Apr 3rd, 2009 7:30 PM
> >
> > Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> > Center Catastrophe
> >
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> > Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
> > Site: www.STJ911.org
> > Email: stj...@gmail.com
> > Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
> >
> > Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists
> > and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction
> > of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust
> > itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
> >
> > The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
> > describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
> > taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its
> > destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
> > and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the
> > material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these
> > chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly
> > energetic."
> >
> > The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put
> > forth by critics of the official reports.
> >
> > At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to
> > understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings
> > of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' --
> > an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.
> >
> > Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
> > (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings'
> > destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of
> > these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another
> > incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the
> > buildings without notice.
> >
> > NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They
> > concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the
> > building failures.
> >
> > Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST
> > has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any
> > other accelerant or explosive.
> >
> > "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative
> > procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They
> > haven't."
> >
> > Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.
> >
> > Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he
> > thinks NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional
> > thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly
> > engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed
> > for just this type of application."
> >
> > Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for
> > the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building
> > failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the
> > extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of
> > micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as
> > behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption".
> >
> > "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said,
> > "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1,
> > 2 & 7."
> >
> > NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of
> > the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."
> >
> > Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University
> > and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature,
> > Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began
> > researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.
> >
> > Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a
> > magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident
> > survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted
> > to the magnet.
> >
> > "That was very odd to me," he said.
> >
> > Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially
> > described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.
> >
> > But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material
> > would take longer.
> >
> > Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels
> > Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for
> > over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such
> > as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and
> > the Journal of Physical Chemistry A.
> >
> > Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the
> > September 11th attack. and says has two answers.
> >
> > "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask
> > me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer
> > them, 'I was on your side'."
> >
> > Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of
> > the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he
> > hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed
> > by the mainstream public and media."
> >
> > And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters
> > Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements
> > in 2004, and was consequently fired.
> >
> > "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been
> > shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the
> > dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or
> > something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily
> > available to just anyone."
> >
> > In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial
> > explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law
> > requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.
> >
> > In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging
> > the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil
> > Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of
> > Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges
> > have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group,
> > The Journal of 9/11 Studies
> >
> > Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of
> > over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001
> > attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.
> >
> > For information: http://www.stj911.com
> > http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThe...
> >
> >
> >
>
> So you're posting a new version of the same old kooktardic nonsense.
>
> Yawwwwwwnnnnnn!
to respond, is to see it posted again.
I do it all the time, esp. when I agree with the O.P.
--
money; what a concept!
BDK
says...
ROTFL, you get more insane all the time.
BDK
says...
BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
That's hilariously ironic.
Ridicule is better than you deserve.
chinagreenelvis
> BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
>
> That's hilariously ironic.
>
> Ridicule is better than you deserve.
> --
>
> BDK..
I'm the neutral observer... FF was quoting my post. Unfortunately, it
was a copy and paste job so it made it look as if he was saying it
himself.
BDK
@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, chinagr...@gmail.com says...
That's what he does, most of the time. I'm kind of disappointed, as I
thought maybe he had "appropriated" some new material.
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have remained
> silent and undetected all this time.
Exactly. And you're one of them.
You're not too bright, eh Pat?
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:hQ6Fm.76095$lR3....@newsfe25.iad...
Yeah, I know. You just - lie.
Animal03-
<snicker> another clueless kooktard without a clue. * years and
counting and the kooktards still do not have one iota of evidence.
LMAO
>
>
Animal03-
He is far brighter than a kooktard that believes in controled demolition
of the WTC
chinagreenelvis
> In article <51213ef3-0e8e-4881-9edb-c60c3a1fa015
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 8:04 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
>
> > > That's hilariously ironic.
>
> > > Ridicule is better than you deserve.
> > > --
>
> > > BDK..
>
> > I'm the neutral observer... FF was quoting my post. Unfortunately, it
> > was a copy and paste job so it made it look as if he was saying it
> > himself.
>
> That's what he does, most of the time. I'm kind of disappointed, as I
> thought maybe he had "appropriated" some new material.
> --
>
> BDK..
> Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
> Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
> Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
So, anywho, I still don't get it. The lot of you who are so quick to
tell FF what a nutter he is, why do you frequent this forum? Are you
all genuinely interested in fringe conspiracy theories that have no
outlet but a dark corner of an outdated internet technology (I know I
come here because I get a kick out of them), or do you hang out here
for target practice? What do you guys do for a living and does that
have any bearing on your activity here?
BDK
@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, chinagr...@gmail.com says...
> On Oct 27, 1:22 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > In article <51213ef3-0e8e-4881-9edb-c60c3a1fa015
> > @j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, chinagreenel...@gmail.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 26, 8:04 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
> >
> > > > That's hilariously ironic.
> >
> > > > Ridicule is better than you deserve.
> > > > --
> >
> > > > BDK..
> >
> > > I'm the neutral observer... FF was quoting my post. Unfortunately, it
> > > was a copy and paste job so it made it look as if he was saying it
> > > himself.
> >
> > That's what he does, most of the time. I'm kind of disappointed, as I
> > thought maybe he had "appropriated" some new material.
> > --
> >
> > BDK..
> > Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
> > Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
> > Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>
> So, anywho, I still don't get it.
Really?
> The lot of you who are so quick to
> tell FF what a nutter he is, why do you frequent this forum?
Because the kooks are funny as hell!
> Are you all genuinely interested in fringe conspiracy theories that have no
> outlet but a dark corner of an outdated internet technology (I know I
> come here because I get a kick out of them), or do you hang out here
> for target practice?
Most of the "theories" raved about by the kooks have web pages that gave
them the "proof" they claim about 911, Chemtrails, Jews, and on and on.
To be honest, many of the kooks of the past tower over the present crop,
both in level of insanity, and original content. But any kook is fun to
play with. That's why I'm here, kooks have always cracked be up, From
the first time I talked to mental patients at the hospital my best
friend's dad worked at at about 8 years old, to over 40 years later,
here on usenet, and once in a while on the phone at work.
> What do you guys do for a living and does that
> have any bearing on your activity here?
>
I'm a partner in a real estate business, and I do tech support for extra
money. Both have nothing to do with playing with kooks, unfortunately. I
would love to get paid to play with kooks, it would be my dream job.
BDK
And you appear to be so dim you actually suck the light out of a room.
Animal03-
> On Oct 27, 1:22 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>> In article <51213ef3-0e8e-4881-9edb-c60c3a1fa015
>> @j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, chinagreenel...@gmail.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 26, 8:04 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>> BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
>>>> That's hilariously ironic.
>>>> Ridicule is better than you deserve.
>>>> --
>>>> BDK..
>>> I'm the neutral observer... FF was quoting my post. Unfortunately, it
>>> was a copy and paste job so it made it look as if he was saying it
>>> himself.
>> That's what he does, most of the time. I'm kind of disappointed, as I
>> thought maybe he had "appropriated" some new material.
>> --
>>
>> BDK..
>> Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>> Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>> Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>
> So, anywho, I still don't get it. The lot of you who are so quick to
> tell FF what a nutter he is, why do you frequent this forum?
Entertainment
>Are you
> all genuinely interested in fringe conspiracy theories that have no
> outlet but a dark corner of an outdated internet technology (I know I
> come here because I get a kick out of them), or do you hang out here
> for target practice? What do you guys do for a living and does that
> have any bearing on your activity here?
Licensed architect for 20 years and with my own business.
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:FYMFm.15400$MZ1....@newsfe11.iad...
For now, you and people like you are doing a fine job by hiding the truth.
But thats only because people, ordinary people, really dont care and are
too scared to face the facts (one of them being that 9/11 happened not
the way US gvt says it did, and they - people - did nothing). Not because
"the official narrative is true" or that you dumbass debunkers are "doing
a fine job hiding and distorting the truth", because let's face it.
Debunkers are, ultimatively, pretty stupid. So are the people who arranged
9/11 (elites), because it was such a sloppy job that one might think they
did a poor job on purpose. We'll see.
But, hey, animal03. All in due time. We have patience. And it's not like
you guys can change all the live TV footage of the event. And even what
was shown on TV is enough for people to question the official bullshit
fairytale. You can put top 100 experts in front of those live TV footage
shots, and none of their theories about how the building came down ("without
use of explosives", of course, thats why they're called "top 100 experts", duh!)
will hold water.
That's why none of you debunkers, or those "experts", came with a floor by
floor analysis of the two collapses. Only thing you guys can "explain" is the
initiation of the collapses. Beyond that? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Nula.
Not to mention how none of you can explain why did the upper portion of
the South tower disintegrate while it fell down and "crushed" other "70+
floors". There was nothing "crushing" it, so yeah... "no explosives have
been used".
And you gvt didn't even look for explosives. Hahaha, c'mon animal03.
You think all of the people are stupid all of the mf time?
Al Dykes
100s of thousands of eyewitnesses and massive amounts of evidence say
that WTC and the Pentagon happened as described in the basic story.
There are no eyewitnesses that have an alternative claim that fits the
physical evidence. I'm one of the eyewitnesses to part of what
happened at WTC.
Here are the names of a few thousand people and organizations that
worked on some aspect of 9/11 and support the official story.
------
Expert who OPENLY support the official account of 9/11:
MIT scientists:
Eduardo Kausel Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
* C.E. 1967, University of Chile
* M.S. 1972, MIT
* Sc.D. 1974, MIT
John E. Fernandez Associate Professor of Building Technology - MIT
1989--MArch, Princeton University
1985--BSAD, MIT
Awards or Positions:
2003--Honorable Mention, International Competition for the Design of Ephemeral Structures
2002--Hass Award: Laminated Glass Research
2002--Class of 1957 Career Development Professorship
2001--Graduate Student Council Award for Teaching
2001--American Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Service Award for Conference Co-Chair of the 2000 ACSA Technology Conference
2000--3M Innovation Award
1998--New York City AIA: Design Citation, Columbia University Law School with Polshek and Partners
1998--New York State AIA: Design Citation, Columbia University Law School with Polshek and Partners
1998--New York State AIA: Design Citation, New York Times Printing Plant with Polshek and Partners
1988--Master's Thesis Prize, Princeton University, School of Architecture: Butler Traveling Fellowship
Tomasz Wierzbicki Professor of Applied Mechanics Director, Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory - MIT
Ph.D. in Applied Mechanics, 1965 Institute of Fundamental Technological
Research, Warsaw, Poland
S.M. in Engine Design, 1960 Warsaw Technical University, Warsaw, Poland
B.S. I took a unified program that led directly to the Master of Science
Awards or Positions:
Maximilian T. Huber Award for the best work in Mechanics, Polish Academy of Sciences, 1974
Chairman of the Euromech Colloquium No. 121 on "Dynamics and Crushing of Plastic Structures", 1978
Chairman of the Summer School on "Dynamics of Plastic Structures", International Center for Mechanical Sciences, Udine, Italy, 1979
Polish Academy of Sciences award for the book "Design of Structures to Dynamic Loads", 1979
Co-chair, First International Symposium, "Structural Crashworthiness", UK, 1983
Co-chair, Second International Symposium, "Structural Failure", Cambridge, MA, 1988
Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Senior US Scientist Award, 1988-1989
Co-chair, Third International Symposium, "Structural Crashworthiness and Failure", UK, 1993
Member of the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Impact Engineering and International Journal of Vehicle Design
Liang Xue Ph.D. Candidate of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
BS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
BS in Computer Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
MS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1997
MS in Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003
Awards or Positions:
Wunsch Foundation Silent Hoist and Crane Award, 2006;
Ziqiang Award , 1997 ;
Guanghua Award , 1996 ;
Outstanding Graduate , 1994 ;
Outstanding Performance Award , 1991-4;
Model Student , 1993 ;
Outstanding Student , 1992
Meg Hendry-Brogan Ocean Engineering Graduate Student - MIT
Ahmed F. Ghoniem Professor of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, July 1973, Cairo University, Egypt
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, October 1975, Cairo University, Egypt
Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, June 1980 , University of California, Berkeley
Awards or Positions:
Sep. 83 - Current Department Undergraduate Faculty Advisor
Sep. 84 - Sep. 87 Department Graduate Committee
Department Graduate Advisor
Sep. 85 - Sep. 90 Mathematics Minor Advisor
Sep. 85 - June 86 Department Seminar Chairman
Sep. 87 - Sept. 88 Department Admission Committee
Sep. 90 - Current Computers in Education
Nov. 91 - Jan. 92 Ad hoc Committee on Promotion
1991 -1992 Committee to establish PEEER
Jan. 92 Current Department Admissions Committee
Jan. 90 - May 94 SAL Seminar Series
Jan. 94 - June 94 Search Committee Chair
Jan. 94 - 1995 Ad hoc Committee on the Core Development
Jan. 94 - Current Space Committee
Sep. 95 - June 98 Committee on Undergraduate Programs
June 96 - Current Head of Thermo Fluids Sciences Division
Sep 99 - Sep 00 Committee on Curricula, member
Sep 00 Committee on Curricula, Chair
Oral Buyukozturk Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
* Ph.D. 1970, Cornell University
* M.S. 1969, Cornell University
* M.S.C.E. 1963, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
Awards or Positions:
Infrastructure Science and Technology Group
Franz-Josef Ulm Professor of Engineering Mechanics and Materials - MIT
* Diplom Ingenieur (M.Sc.) 1990, TU Munich
* Docteur-Ingenieur (Ph.D.) 1994, ENPC, Paris
* Habilitation 1998, ENS de Cachan
Yossi Sheffi Professor of Engineering Systems - MIT
B.Sc. Technion in Israel - 1975
S.M. - MIT, 1977
Ph.D - MIT 1978
Awards or Positions:
Director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics
Founder: MIT Master of Engineering in Logistics program
Founder: MIT:Zaragoza Program
Plaza2006 Award
Distinguished Service Award (Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) - 1997
Life Fellow of Cambridge University's Clare Hall College
---------
NIST scientists:
Dr. H.S. Lew - Senior Research Engineer. PhD Civil Engineering, BS in Architectural Engineering. ASCE Fellow.
With NIST: Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Building and Fire Research.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...p?lastname=Lew
(his full profile)
Richard W. Bukowski - Senior Research Engineer. BSc Electrical Engineering.
With NIST: Co-ordinator of Building and Fire Research Lab.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...tname=bukowski
(his full profile)
Dr. Fahim H. Sadek - PhD Mechanical Engineering SMU
With NIST: Research Structural Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=sadek
(his full profile)
Dr. Frank W. Gayle - PhD Metallurgy MIT, MSc Materials Science, BSc Civil Engineering.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
(his full profile)
Dr. David D. Evans - PhD in Engineering (Fire protection)
Dr. William Grosshandler - PhD Mechanical Engineering UC Berkley
With NIST: Head of Building and Fire Research
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...e=grosshandler
(his full profile)
Dr. Richard G. Gann - PhD Physical Chemistry MIT
With NIST: Senior Research Scientist - Integrated Performance Assessment
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...?lastname=gann
(his full profile)
Dr. John L. Gross - PhD Structural Engineering, BSc/MSc Civil Engineering Cornell
With NIST: Research Engineer - Materials and Construction Research Division
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=gross
(his full profile)
Dr. Therese P. McAllister - PhD Structural Engineering John Hopkins
With NIST: Senior Structural Engineer.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...ame=mcallister
(her full profile)
Jason D. Averill - MSc Structural Engineering (working on PhD) John Hopkins
With NIST: Research Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...stname=averill
(his full profile)
J. Randall Lawson - BA, BSc Industrial Education, AA Computer Science and Math
With NIST: General Physical Scientist
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...astname=lawson
(his full profile)
Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981
James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland
Educated as a mechanical engineer
B.S. degree from New Jersey Institute of Technology (1962)
M.S. (1966), Ph.D. (1970) from New York University.
http://www.enfp.umd.edu/faculty-profiles/quintiere.html
---------
FEMA/ASCE Pentagon Team Scientists/Engineers
--------------------------------------------
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Team Leader
Technical Director, Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Specialty: Blast-resistant design
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Specialty: Blast effects and structural design
James R. Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal, J.R. Harris & Company
Specialty: Structural engineering
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Specialty: Concrete, structural and fire engineering
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Specialty: Fire protection
FEMA/ASCE WTC Team Scientists/Engineers
---------------------------------------
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., Lead
Senior Vice President
Construction Technologies Laboratories, Skokie, Illinois
Expert in building collapse investigations; principal investigator, Murrah Federal Office Building Study.
William Baker, P.E., S.E. Partner
Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP
Expert in tall-building design.
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D.
Professor, Center for Fire Safety Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts
Expert in building fire safety design and fire computer modeling.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Ryan-Biggs Associates, Troy, New York
Expert in facades.
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Principal
URS Corporation, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Partner
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers, New York, New York
Expert in structural engineering.
Robert F. Duval
Senior Fire Investigator
National Fire Protection Association
Expert in fire investigations.
Dan Eschenasy
Chief, Structural Engineering
City of New York
Dept of Design and Construction
John T. Fisher, P.E.
Joseph T. Stuart Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Expert in metallurgy and connections.
Richard G. Gewain
Senior Engineer
Hughes Associates, Inc., Baltimore
Expert in fire engineering.
Ramon Gilsanz
Managing Partner
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, New York, New York
Expert in structural engineering.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
Leader
Structural Systems and Design Group Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Expert in steel design and fire-structure interaction.
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Senior Vice President
EQE Structural Engineers Division, ABS Consulting, Belmont, California
Expert in structural analysis and design.
Nestor Iwankiw
Vice President, Engineering and Research
American Institute for Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois
Expert in steel design.
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Institute for Research in Construction
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
Expert in fire effects on materials.
Eric Letvin
Department Head, Hazards Engineering Group
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Greenbelt, Maryland
Jon Magnusson, P.E.
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, Inc., Seattle, Washington
Expert in structural analysis and high-rise design.
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Fire Strategist
Arup Fire, New York, New York
Expert in fire engineering.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Structural Engineer
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Greenbelt, Maryland
James Milke, Ph. D., P.E.
Professor, Department of Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland
Expert in fire resistance analysis.
Harold E. "Bud" Nelson
Senior Research Engineer
Hughes Associates, Inc.
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
Director, Structural Engineering Institute
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, Virginia
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Managing Partner
Leslie E. Robertson Associates, New York, New York
Expert in structural analysis and high-rise design.
Robert Smilowitz
Principal
Weidlinger Associates, New York, New York
Expert in blast effects.
Bruce Swiren
Hurricane Program Manager, Region II
Federal Emergency Management Agency, New York, New York
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Program Manager, Building Performance Assessment Team
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
--------------
Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC
(first structural engineer to arrive at Pentagon crash site)
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D.
Professor of Computer Science - Purdue
Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 1974.
(worked on comp models of Pentagon)
Dr Asif Usmani
Structural engineering Professor
University of Edinburgh
http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/asif.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Aine M. Brazil, P.E., S.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E.
Allan Jowsey, Ph.D.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E., S.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andre Sidler, P.E., S.E.
Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Andrew Coats, P.E., S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA
Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.)
Asif Usmani, Ph.D., B.E.
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Ayhan Irfanoglu, P.E., S.E.
Barbara Lane, Ph.D.
Bernie Denke, P.E. US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI
Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group
Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.),
Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Brian Tokarczik, P.E., S.E.
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, P.E., S.E.
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Christopher N. McCowan
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
Conrad Paulson, P.E., S.E.
Curtis S.D. Massey
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Biggs, P.E., S.E.
David Cooper, P.E.
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David J. Hammond, P.E., S.E.
David Leach, P.E.
David M. Parks, ME
David Newland Sc.D., FREng.
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dharam Pal, M.E.
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed Jacoby Jr., NYSEMO
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief
Edward M. DePaola, P.E., S.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Eiji Fukuzawa
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Frank Vallebuono, FDNY Battalion Chief
Anthony Varriale, FDNY Captain
Frank Cruthers, FDNY Chief
Frank Fellini, FDNY Chief
Joseph Callan, FDNY Chief
Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations
Nick Visconti, FDNY Deputy Chief
Peter Hayden, FDNY Deputy Chief
Sam Melisi, FDNY Firefighter
Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D.
Frank Greening, Ph.D.
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B.
Fred Endrikat, FEMA USAR
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R
Structural Specialist
Glenn Corbett
Graeme Flint
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:1_MFm.15401$MZ1....@newsfe11.iad...
Says who? You??
Oh, well, if that's the case... it shouldn't bother me at all.
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:ffSFm.15099$Hn5....@newsfe23.iad...
> chinagreenelvis wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 1:22 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>> In article <51213ef3-0e8e-4881-9edb-c60c3a1fa015
>>> @j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, chinagreenel...@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Oct 26, 8:04 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> BWHAHAHAHA! Neutral observer?
>>>>> That's hilariously ironic.
>>>>> Ridicule is better than you deserve.
>>>>> --
>>>>> BDK..
>>>> I'm the neutral observer... FF was quoting my post. Unfortunately, it
>>>> was a copy and paste job so it made it look as if he was saying it
>>>> himself.
>>> That's what he does, most of the time. I'm kind of disappointed, as I
>>> thought maybe he had "appropriated" some new material.
>>> --
>>>
>>> BDK..
>>> Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
>>> Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
>>> Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
>>
>> So, anywho, I still don't get it. The lot of you who are so quick to
>> tell FF what a nutter he is, why do you frequent this forum?
>
> Entertainment
Now, say what you will guise, but that's just pathetic. Imagine what kind of a
lowlife scumbas piece of insecure shite you need to be to poke and make fun
of the "weirdos" and like "crazies" or whatnot in order to make yourself feel
superior for a, let's be honest, moment or two.
Jeez. And dumbass is like "proud" of it... "Entertainment".
Jesus fucking Christ. Is it getting cold in here or what? Brrr...
>>Are you
>> all genuinely interested in fringe conspiracy theories that have no
>> outlet but a dark corner of an outdated internet technology (I know I
>> come here because I get a kick out of them), or do you hang out here
>> for target practice? What do you guys do for a living and does that
>> have any bearing on your activity here?
>
> Licensed architect for 20 years and with my own business.
So? You're still an asshole. Hahaha.
Iarnrod
> "Animal03-" <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote in messagenews:FYMFm.15400$MZ1....@newsfe11.iad...
> > slika wrote:
> >> "Animal03-" <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hQ6Fm.76095$lR3....@newsfe25.iad...
> >>> slika wrote:
> >>>> "Animal03-" <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:_a2Fm.10563$86....@newsfe15.iad...
> >>>>> slika wrote:
> >>>>>> "Electra" <honda9...@excite.com> wrote in message
Bzzzzzttt!! Wrong, Our claims are proven and in fact RELY completely
on the truth. Your claims are physically impossible and are
contradicted by all the facts. That's just the truth and you cannot
deal with the truth.
> But thats only because people, ordinary people, really dont care and are
> too scared to face the facts (one of them being that 9/11 happened not
> the way US gvt says it did, and they - people - did nothing).
Wanna explain how it "didn't happen" the way it was said, KKKook? Make
it good because I could use some fresh laughs!
> Not because
> "the official narrative is true" or that you dumbass debunkers are "doing
> a fine job hiding and distorting the truth",
Of course we're not "doing a fine job hiding and distorting the
truth." We don't even try to do such a thing. We rely on the truth.
>because let's face it.
>
> Debunkers are, ultimatively, pretty stupid.
BWAHAHAHAAA!!! Projection! You believe in physically impossible
things, how does that make anyone but you stupid?
> So are the people who arranged
> 9/11 (elites), because it was such a sloppy job that one might think they
> did a poor job on purpose. We'll see.
BWAHAHAHAAA!! We've already seen, kkkooktard.
> But, hey, animal03. All in due time. We have patience.
It's like that in your cell I imagine. You have to have patience.
> And it's not like
> you guys can change all the live TV footage of the event.
Huh? Why would anyone want to change any of the proof that we are
right and that you are wrong? All of the live video and TV footage
proves us right and you wrong.
> And even what
> was shown on TV is enough for people to question the official bullshit
> fairytale.
:Like? Name one thing, rightard. You can't and you won't.
> You can put top 100 experts in front of those live TV footage
> shots, and none of their theories about how the building came down ("without
> use of explosives", of course, thats why they're called "top 100 experts", duh!)
> will hold water.
The official findings constitute the ONLY explanation that holds all
of the water. OTOH, your claims are contradicted by all the physics,
photos, videos, witnesses, evidence, etc. Your theory is a sieve. It
cannot hold water because it rests on claims that are physically
impossible.
> That's why none of you debunkers, or those "experts", came with a floor by
> floor analysis of the two collapses.
Sure we have, dearie, Dynamic load.
> Only thing you guys can "explain" is the
> initiation of the collapses. Beyond that? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Nula.
You're lying. Once the collapse initiates, it is irresistible. It
crushed all the floors below it.
Why in the world do you "think" this is not fully explained, pumpkin?
> Not to mention how none of you can explain why did the upper portion of
> the South tower disintegrate while it fell down and "crushed" other "70+
> floors".
Why do you "think" the uppper 30 floors would remain intact while
falling and crushing the floors below? Is there some magical new force
that you've come up with to keep it intact while collapsing? <chuckle>
Make this a good one, eh? I need fresh laughs.
> There was nothing "crushing" it,
Nothing but the dynamic energy unleashed in the collapse, eh?
<snicker>
> so yeah... "no explosives have
> been used".
Correct. This is plainly proven by the FACT that there are no
explosions occurring.
> And you gvt didn't even look for explosives.
There were none. Everything was examined.
> Hahaha, c'mon animal03.
>
> You think all of the people are stupid all of the mf time?
Not all the people. Just you, it seems.
BDK
But at least we aren't gullible 911 kooktards.
Patrick Keenan
Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved
in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none
whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.
>
> You're not too bright, eh Pat?
Apparently, rather more than you.
Try asking your parents to explain my post for you.
Hope this helps.
-pk
george
> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved
> in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none
> whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.
>
>
>
> > You're not too bright, eh Pat?
>
> Apparently, rather more than you.
>
> Try asking your parents to explain my post for you.
>
Like some-one would admit to being its parent......
Animal03-
What is pathetic is willfully ignorant kooktards that continuously spout
long debunked claims.
>Imagine what kind of a
> lowlife scumbas piece of insecure shite you need to be to poke and make fun
> of the "weirdos" and like "crazies" or whatnot in order to make yourself feel
> superior for a, let's be honest, moment or two.
<sigh> imagine what lowlife scums use the deaths of almost three
thousand people to profit from ridiculous conspiracy
theories.....knowing there will always be enough ignorant gullible
people to buy their crap.
>
> Jeez. And dumbass is like "proud" of it... "Entertainment".
>
> Jesus fucking Christ. Is it getting cold in here or what? Brrr...
Don't let the door hit you in the as on the way out.
>
>>> Are you
>>> all genuinely interested in fringe conspiracy theories that have no
>>> outlet but a dark corner of an outdated internet technology (I know I
>>> come here because I get a kick out of them), or do you hang out here
>>> for target practice? What do you guys do for a living and does that
>>> have any bearing on your activity here?
>> Licensed architect for 20 years and with my own business.
>
> So? You're still an asshole. Hahaha.
<snicker> and you are still a willfully ignorant kooktard.
>
>
Animal03-
No, it is kooktards like you who continue to ignore the truth.
> But thats only because people, ordinary people, really dont care and are
> too scared to face the facts (one of them being that 9/11 happened not
> the way US gvt says it did, and they - people - did nothing). Not because
> "the official narrative is true" or that you dumbass debunkers are "doing
> a fine job hiding and distorting the truth", because let's face it.
>
> Debunkers are, ultimatively, pretty stupid. So are the people who arranged
> 9/11 (elites), because it was such a sloppy job that one might think they
> did a poor job on purpose. We'll see.
kooktard projection at its finest.
>
> But, hey, animal03. All in due time. We have patience. And it's not like
> you guys can change all the live TV footage of the event. And even what
> was shown on TV is enough for people to question the official bullshit
> fairytale. You can put top 100 experts in front of those live TV footage
> shots, and none of their theories about how the building came down ("without
> use of explosives", of course, thats why they're called "top 100 experts", duh!)
> will hold water.
>
> That's why none of you debunkers, or those "experts", came with a floor by
> floor analysis of the two collapses. Only thing you guys can "explain" is the
> initiation of the collapses. Beyond that? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Nula.
Because kooktard......after the start of the collapse, the rest is
pointless, and has too many variables. It is like asking why a
thousand toothpicks landed exactly the way they did on the floor after
the box broke open.......the way they alnded is not relevant, the reson
the box opened is........but kooktards ignore what is important, and
focus on what is not relevant.
>
> Not to mention how none of you can explain why did the upper portion of
> the South tower disintegrate while it fell down and "crushed" other "70+
> floors".
<sigh> it has been answered countless time.........the building
structure was not designed for the loads that were imposed upon it
during the collapse....let me guess.....you think it should have fallen
like a tree?
There was nothing "crushing" it, so yeah... "no explosives have
> been used".
Because there wasn't any......kooktard.
>
> And you gvt didn't even look for explosives.
they didn't look for space ray guns or rust mites either.......care to
guess why?
Hahaha, c'mon animal03.
>
> You think all of the people are stupid all of the mf time?
No I just think kooktards like yourself, that believe in a controlled
demoliion conspiracy.....are stupid all the time.
>
>
Animal03-
<snicker> in other words, you have no evidence beside
youtube.........and you wonder why you are labeled a kooktard?
>
>
age...@justicemail.com
> In article <4ae898c...@news.x-privat.org>, sl...@hotmail.com says...
> But at least we aren't gullible 911 kooktards.
> --
>
> BDK..
If one searches Google for "sl...@hotmail.com", you find that our new
buddy kooker posts to the "hr.xxx" newsgroups. And guess what "hr" is
the country code for....
CROATIA.
I think slika is our old buddy "croatiaboy" reincarnated.....
Iarnrod
That was some great kook. He seems to have lost his truly insane spark
though.
BDK
@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, age...@justicemail.com says...
That would be nice to see an old kook come back "home".
He's not one of the best, but his sneering attitude was sometimes pretty
funny.
rocket scientist
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote:
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
> Global Research, April 3, 2009
>
> Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions of this important and
> carefully researched article. The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)
>
> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> Center Catastrophe
>
> pp.7-31 (25)
> Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R.Ryan,
> Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R.Gourley, Bradley
> R. Larsen
>
> The Open Chemical Physics Journal
> Volume 2
> ISSN: 1874-4125
> doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
>
> Complete Article
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TO
> CPJ.SGM
>
> Abstract:
>
> We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we
> have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World
> Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from
> separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show
> marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a
> Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second
> WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The
> properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy,
> scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive
> spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The
> red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are
> largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like
> structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone
> demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and
> aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a
> DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at
> approximately 430 �C, far below the normal ignition temperature for
> conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed
> in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray
> chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted
> thermitic material and highly energetic.
>
> Global Research Editor's Note
> The definition of thermitic material:
>
> A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum
> powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an
> intense heat.
>
> The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
> Edition copyright �2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
> Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal
> oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite
> reaction. (Wikipedia)
>
> What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
>
> "Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly
> to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction
> is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are
> combined and ignited. Ignition itself requires extremely high
> temperatures."
>
> Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching
> implications of these findings.
>
> Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11
> attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of
> the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings
> also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
>
> Below are selected excerpts of the article. Readers can also link to
> the complete text, by clicking the link
>
> Complete Article
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TO
> CPJ.SGM
>
> EXCERPTS
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11,
> 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted
> thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of
> life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and
> radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other
> reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave
> importance.
>
> A great deal of effort has been put forth by various
> government-sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large
> part, to the reports released by FEMA [1] and NIST [2]. Other studies
> of the destruction have been less well publicized but are no less
> important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of
> that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day
> [3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused
> attention on the remaining physical material, and on available
> photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public
> hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three
> skyscrapers.
>
> CONCLUSIONS
>
> We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers
> in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have
> applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale
> structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their
> red component. The red material is most interesting and has the
> following characteristics:
>
> 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon.
> Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes
> present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
>
> 2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present
> in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and
> detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
>
> 3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of
> components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently
> concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
>
> 4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas
> the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of
> the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as
> nanothermite or super-thermite.
>
> 5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio
> consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples
> was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition
> material whereas elemental iron was not.
>
> 6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red
> material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
>
> 7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously
> at a temperature of approximately 430 �C, with a rather narrow
> exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a
> known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the
> presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material
> is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900
> �C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
>
> 8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 �C, we
> found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue,
> indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since
> the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these
> shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron
> content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a
> high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the
> heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
>
> 9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have
> an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and
> aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical
> signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids
> produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the
> signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
>
> 10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic
> substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite
> formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and
> thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these
> chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an
> energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes
> observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the
> classic thermite reaction.
>
> Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the
> red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted
> thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly
> energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
> (emphasis added)
>
> Complete Article
>
> http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TO
> CPJ.SGM
>
> Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust by
> researcher
> Friday Apr 3rd, 2009 7:30 PM
>
> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
> Center Catastrophe
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> Contact: Victoria Ashley, STJ911 committee member
> Site: www.STJ911.org
> Email: stj...@gmail.com
> Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust
>
> Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists
> and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction
> of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust
> itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.
>
> The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal,
> describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust
> taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its
> destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
> and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the
> material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these
> chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly
> energetic."
>
> The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put
> forth by critics of the official reports.
>
> At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to
> understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings
> of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' --
> an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.
>
> Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology
> (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings'
> destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of
> these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another
> incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the
> buildings without notice.
>
> NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They
> concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the
> building failures.
>
> Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST
> has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any
> other accelerant or explosive.
>
> "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative
> procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They
> haven't."
>
> Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.
>
> Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he
> thinks NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional
> thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly
> engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed
> for just this type of application."
>
> Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for
> the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building
> failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the
> extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of
> micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as
> behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption".
>
> "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said,
> "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1,
> 2 & 7."
>
> NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of
> the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."
>
> Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University
> and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature,
> Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began
> researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.
>
> Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a
> magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident
> survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted
> to the magnet.
>
> "That was very odd to me," he said.
>
> Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially
> described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.
>
> But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material
> would take longer.
>
> Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels
> Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for
> over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such
> as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and
> the Journal of Physical Chemistry A.
>
> Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the
> September 11th attack. and says has two answers.
>
> "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask
> me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer
> them, 'I was on your side'."
>
> Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of
> the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he
> hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed
> by the mainstream public and media."
>
> And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters
> Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements
> in 2004, and was consequently fired.
>
> "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been
> shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the
> dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or
> something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily
> available to just anyone."
>
> In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial
> explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law
> requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.
>
> In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging
> the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil
> Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of
> Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges
> have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group,
> The Journal of 9/11 Studies
>
> Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of
> over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001
> attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.
>
> For information: http://www.stj911.com
> http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThe...
and;
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Well, you can't dispute the contents in the "peer-reviewed
"Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal", and you're too
weak to deal with reality.
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... master Cheeeeeeney ...
Cry out for your satanic idol when you have nothing else.
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:02:58 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... we can have more laughs at
You're laughing at the 9/11 victims when you don't
mind at all that the real perpetrators get away with it.
Even the most servile bushworshipper can't dispute it:
In fact, his grandfather helped the Nazis kill Americans,
and his father was involved in Iran-Contra, among many
other things.
There is nothing whatsoever in Bush's personal or
family history that'd make him hesitate to commit
murderous treason against the United States.
http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:00:41 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... a neocon... I ...
You don't seem to understand that your war criminal
idols wouldn't hesitate to murder Americans for their
fun and profit.
See also: "Operation Northwoods".
Notice that even the most desperate neocon pawn
can't dispute what the witnesses reported.
"Witnesses To WTC Explosives"
http://www.rense.com/general68/mreproof.htm
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:44 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... I am afraid of reality.
You'd already made that obvious, but it's not about you.
It's about the victims/survivors of 9/11.
They deserve justice, no matter how much you hate them.
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:35:59 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... the BushCo worshiper. FACT. ... shill for the criminal ...
You do that because you're afraid of reality.
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:39:37 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... the Buch...
The what?
Notice how the bushworshipper can't deal with a word of this.
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of
evils. Sympathy
for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary
common interest in
cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one nation
the enmities of
the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and
wars of the latter
without justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges
denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the
concessions; by
unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by
exciting jealousy,
ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal
privileges are
withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens who
devote themselves
to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of
their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with
the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public
opinion, or a laudable
zeal for public good, the foolish compliances of ambition, corruption,
or infatuation."
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread121869/pg1
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 07:28:27 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... nutbag physically impossible theories...
You've swallowed all those offered you by your
master Cheney.
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... playing the useful idiot ...
You sure are.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:37:49 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>...subservient...
You're doing just what your neocon masters want you to do.
http://www.stewwebb.com/9-11WTCBushCheneyTreason.html
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:53:25 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... rightard...
>... delusional rightard fuckwad.
>...being the useful idiot ...
No one had asked about you.
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:06:29 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... rightard ...
No one had asked for you.
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:22:07 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... still can't comprehend ...full of shit.
Of course you have those problems.
You're too weak and fearful to consider reality.
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:43:09 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>delusional kkkooker world view.
You can't comprehend that Bush and Cheney are
still profiting from 9/11.
"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every
occasion its
enemies attack it.
"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent
attacks, which seems to
have been planned by people for personal reasons..."
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
Bush and Cheney certainly have personal reasons for wanting the
crimes of 9/11 to occur. They did all they could to make sure
the crimes would happen, and they're the primary beneficiaries.
On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:05:01 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iar...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>... He's admitted it...
You're easily duped by faked video.
There's also the way Bush hustled the bin Ladens out of the USA.
He'd forced the FBI to stop investigating them when he took office.
http://tvnewslies.org/html/bin_laden_ties.html
Bush also made sure that the pilots were disarmed, in July of 2001.
Bush and Cheney are still making money on 9/11.
They're the primary beneficiaries of the crime PNAC wanted.
Even their most subservient pawn can't deny it.
Iarnrod
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT), Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Well, you can't dispute the contents in the "peer-reviewed
> "Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal",
Sorry but I already have.
> >... you serve your master Cheeeeeeney ...
>
> Yes, I cry out for my satanic idol when I have nothing else.
Yep.
slika
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:12282aa1-9611-448f...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
---
And here comes the turd, hanging out of ol' Pat's arsehole...
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>
> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>> news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have
>>> remained
>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>>
>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
> smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been
> detected.
Thousands? Are you kidding me? Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD. So, like, as I've
said before, you're not too bright, eh Pat?
>> You're not too bright, eh Pat?
>
> Apparently, rather more than you.
Sure. You're the one believing that 110 floors of concrete and steel can collapse
"due to few small oxygen-starved office fires and some minor structural damage"
in less than 20 seconds. Hell, let's be generous.
60 seconds.
Don't know about you, Pat, but there were like 70+ intact floors below both
impact zones. Didn't you notice?
Oh, I remember. You were talking about pancakes right about after 9/11, right?
Are you one of those people? Maybe?
> Try asking your parents to explain my post for you.
I'll do, but only if you go and ask yours too about what I've said.
Deal or no deal?
Animal03-
> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>> news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
>>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have
>>>> remained
>>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
>> smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been
>> detected.
>
> Thousands? Are you kidding me?
YEs. ....thousands......croat boy........since you obviuosly have never
worked in NYC, you wouldn't have a clue.
> Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
> In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
only to kooktards like yourself
> So, like, as I've
> said before, you're not too bright, eh Pat?
but far brighter than you.....kooktard
>
>>> You're not too bright, eh Pat?
>> Apparently, rather more than you.
>
> Sure. You're the one believing that 110 floors of concrete and steel can collapse
> "due to few small oxygen-starved office fires and some minor structural damage"
> in less than 20 seconds. Hell, let's be generous.
Well since there was no structural concrete, no small nor oxygen starved
fires and far greater than "minor damage" your straw man is useless
>
> 60 seconds.
>
> Don't know about you, Pat, but there were like 70+ intact floors below both
> impact zones. Didn't you notice?
That were not designed for dynamic loading...........come back when
someone buys you a clue
>
> Oh, I remember. You were talking about pancakes right about after 9/11, right?
<sigh> only kooktards keep repeating "pancake collapse"
george
> YEs. ....thousands......croat boy........since you obviuosly have never
> worked in NYC, you wouldn't have a clue.
>
croatboy certainly didn't get anything approaching an education while
he/she/it was away this last time.
Patrick Keenan
>
> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>>
>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>
>>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>> news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed
>>>> responsibility for it and were
>>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of
>>>> conspirators who have remained
>>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>>>
>>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were
>> involved in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and install
>> them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.
>
> Thousands? Are you kidding me?
No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a
lot of people.
> Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
Yes, meaning it was a few fanatics who flew planes into the towers.
> In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there is actually zero evidence of controlled
demolition.
Start with identifying the source of the explosives you claim were used and
tracing their path to the walls in the WTC.
> So, like, as I've
> said before, you're not too bright, eh Pat?
>
>>> You're not too bright, eh Pat?
>>
>> Apparently, rather more than you.
>
> Sure. You're the one believing that 110 floors of concrete and steel can
> collapse
> "due to few small oxygen-starved office fires and some minor structural
> damage"
Excuse me, but now would be the time to point out that you are making things
up.
-pk
Iarnrod
> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4aec3125$2...@news.x-privat.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>
> >> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> >>>news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
> >>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> >>>>>news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed
> >>>> responsibility for it and were
> >>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of
> >>>> conspirators who have remained
> >>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>
> >>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>
> >> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were
> >> involved in a conspiracy to smuggle explosives into the WTC and install
> >> them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.
>
> > Thousands? Are you kidding me?
>
> No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a
> lot of people.
>
> > Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
>
> Yes, meaning it was a few fanatics who flew planes into the towers.
>
> > In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
>
> Meanwhile, in the real world, there is actually zero evidence of controlled
> demolition.
>
> Start with identifying the source of the explosives you claim were used and
> tracing their path to the walls in the WTC.
Heck, I'd settle for him trying to show me where these silent and
invisible "explosives" are going off. Forget hauling them into the
building and rigging them... there aren't any explosives going off in
the collapses. How do the kooks square that fact with their theories?
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aec3125$2...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>> news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>>> news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
>>>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have
>>>>> remained
>>>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to
>>> smuggle explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been
>>> detected.
>>
>> Thousands? Are you kidding me?
>
> No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a lot of people.
More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.
But hey. Patrick is using the old disinfo technique: when needed, exaggerate.
Typical shill technique. Another one is having his usenet buddy replying and
using ad-hom riiiight... ...about... now, so just wait for it.
>> Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
>
> Yes, meaning it was a few fanatics who flew planes into the towers.
Well, that would be true if the whole US military was a bunch of retarded
mongoloids, Patrick.
So, either the terrorists had moles in every major part of the US defense
system, or the US military is nothing more than a bunch of retarded
mongoloids.
Because, how did the terrorists pick the right day to have all those fighter
jets participating in various training exercises all over US?
>> In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
>
> Meanwhile, in the real world, there is actually zero evidence of controlled demolition.
Prove it. Give me scientific evidence of it, Patrick. Tell me, who looked for
explosives, which techniques did they use, what did they actually find, where
did they look for explosives, which types of explosives did they look for, how
many people were involved in that part of the whole 9/11 investigation...
C'mon, Patrick. I'm all ears.
> Start with identifying the source of the explosives you claim were used and tracing their path to
> the walls in the WTC.
That's not my job. That FBI's job, Patrick. That's the whole point behind asking
for a new investigation, dumbass.
I told you, Keenan... you're obviously not too bright.
>> So, like, as I've
>> said before, you're not too bright, eh Pat?
>>
>>>> You're not too bright, eh Pat?
>>>
>>> Apparently, rather more than you.
>>
>> Sure. You're the one believing that 110 floors of concrete and steel can collapse
>> "due to few small oxygen-starved office fires and some minor structural damage"
>
> Excuse me, but now would be the time to point out that you are making things up.
Well then, prove me wrong.
I mean, if you're "right" and I'm "wrong", why would it be too difficult for you
to do so.
So, Patrick, go ahead. I'm all ears.
BDK
Hey, where did you disappear to for all that time?
Asylum?
Jail?
Forcibly evicted?
A new cardboard box (You would call it a mansion, I guess) in another
city?
The electric company turned you off??
The judge ordered you off the net during your probation?
Your parents got fed up with all the howling?
Patrick Keenan
Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.
However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a
controlled demolition and remained silent.
The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks and
murders were not shielded by the many people they came into contact with.
All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented cars to them,
came forward.
Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into
awareness of the procuring and movement of large amounts of explosives have
come forward.
The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.
> But hey. Patrick is using the old disinfo technique: when needed,
> exaggerate.
You are, after all, the one exaggerating. You've inflated the numbers
significantly, and are just making things up. .
>
> Typical shill technique. Another one is having his usenet buddy replying
> and
> using ad-hom riiiight... ...about... now, so just wait for it.
>
>>> Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
>>
>> Yes, meaning it was a few fanatics who flew planes into the towers.
>
> Well, that would be true if the whole US military was a bunch of retarded
> mongoloids, Patrick.
It is true, and they aren't.
Your delusions do not dictate reality.
> So, either the terrorists had moles in every major part of the US defense
> system,
Why do you think that moles would be required? Do you think that the
scheduling of military training exercises in populated areas is secret?
> or the US military is nothing more than a bunch of retarded
> mongoloids.
And of course they aren't, and you are wrong.
>
> Because, how did the terrorists pick the right day to have all those
> fighter
> jets participating in various training exercises all over US?
Of course, such information is not hard to come by.
>>> In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
>>
>> Meanwhile, in the real world, there is actually zero evidence of
>> controlled demolition.
>
> Prove it.
There is no evidence that demonstrates controlled demolition.
And if you had such evidence, you'd be rich.
> Give me scientific evidence of it, Patrick. Tell me, who looked for
> explosives, which techniques did they use,
Read the NIST report. They looked and found no evidence.
> what did they actually find, where
> did they look for explosives, which types of explosives did they look for,
> how
> many people were involved in that part of the whole 9/11 investigation...
>
> C'mon, Patrick. I'm all ears.
>
>> Start with identifying the source of the explosives you claim were used
>> and tracing their path to the walls in the WTC.
>
> That's not my job.
Since *you* are the one making the claim that it was a controlled
demolition, it most certainly is "your job".
You can't produce *any* evidence that the large qualtity of explosives
required were sourced, obtained, transported, carried past security, or
installed.
You have none of the evidence required to show that explosives were used -
and such evidence would be clear, obvious, and inarguable.
You just don't have it.
Come back when you learn something.
-pk
slika
"Animal03-" <Wher...@yesterday.com> wrote in message news:kI_Gm.309$v47...@newsfe23.iad...
So, that''s why 13th floor was destroyed in almost the exact same manner
as the 99th floor of the South Tower, eh "expert"?
So that's why the upper portion of the South Tower disintegrated in mid-air
after the collapse has already started and after "lower floors were crushed
because they were not designed for dynamic loading"?
Is THAT what you're saying, retard?
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message news:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLX...@supernews.com...
> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aede022$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>
>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHX...@supernews.com...
>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4aec3125$2...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
>>>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Electra" <hond...@excite.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:580cf602-bd8b-4015...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> On Oct 23, 4:00 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:37:40 -0400, "Freedom Man" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nah, it couldn't have been the handfuls of people who claimed responsibility for it and were
>>>>>>> tracked down (after the fact); it must have been the thousands of conspirators who have remained
>>>>>>> silent and undetected all this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly. And you're one of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not the one who thinks that thousands of people were involved in a conspiracy to smuggle
>>>>> explosives into the WTC and install them, none whom have ever spoken up or ever been detected.
>>>>
>>>> Thousands? Are you kidding me?
>>>
>>> No, I'm not. By necessity, the "controlled demolition" theory involves a lot of people.
>>
>> More than 19, yes Patrick. Tens of thousands? Far from it.
>
> Tens of thousands is your claim, not mine.
Quote, please.
> However, there is no way that only nineteen people were involved in a controlled demolition and remained
> silent.
>
> The small number of people who were actually responsible for the attacks and murders were not shielded by
> the many people they came into contact with. All the people who fed them, housed them, taught them, rented
> cars to them, came forward.
>
> Your idea requires that none of the many people who would have come into awareness of the procuring and
> movement of large amounts of explosives have come forward.
>
> The reality is that they haven't come forward because it didn't happen.
Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
been used on 9/11?
Do you, Patrick?
>> But hey. Patrick is using the old disinfo technique: when needed, exaggerate.
>
> You are, after all, the one exaggerating. You've inflated the numbers significantly, and are just making
> things up. .
Quote, please.
>> Typical shill technique. Another one is having his usenet buddy replying and
>> using ad-hom riiiight... ...about... now, so just wait for it.
>>
>>>> Operation needs to be tight. And it was.
>>>
>>> Yes, meaning it was a few fanatics who flew planes into the towers.
>>
>> Well, that would be true if the whole US military was a bunch of retarded
>> mongoloids, Patrick.
>
> It is true, and they aren't.
>
> Your delusions do not dictate reality.
Neither do yours, Patrick. but by some kind of magic, you think they do.
>> So, either the terrorists had moles in every major part of the US defense
>> system,
>
> Why do you think that moles would be required? Do you think that the scheduling of military training
> exercises in populated areas is secret?
Patrick, Patrick. They had to have had moles, because 9.11.2001. turned out to
be a perfect day to hijack 4 aeroplanes and hit 3 out of 4 designated targets.
AND, having US military not firing a single shot. Not even a gun. Nothing.
Capisci?
So, it is not like "any other day", it was THE day. So, sure "terrorists" could have
known about some training exercises that were going on that day, but some training
exercises and details about them are held in secret even today.
But, hey Patrick. Nice spin and manipulation of what's been said. After all, that's
the trait of all debunkers out there, right?
>> or the US military is nothing more than a bunch of retarded
>> mongoloids.
>
> And of course they aren't, and you are wrong.
Well then, explain it Patrick.
Or, are you in loss for words, because you (as a manipulative and dishonest debunker)
dont' have a preprepared answer, eh?
Negligence and incompetence?
>> Because, how did the terrorists pick the right day to have all those fighter
>> jets participating in various training exercises all over US?
>
> Of course, such information is not hard to come by.
Well then, prove it, Patrick.
I'm all ears.
>>>> In one hand it was tight, but on the other hand... obvious CD.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, in the real world, there is actually zero evidence of controlled demolition.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> There is no evidence that demonstrates controlled demolition.
>
> And if you had such evidence, you'd be rich.
Give me scientific evidence of it, Patrick.
>> Give me scientific evidence of it, Patrick. Tell me, who looked for
>> explosives, which techniques did they use,
>
> Read the NIST report. They looked and found no evidence.
Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
>> what did they actually find, where
>> did they look for explosives, which types of explosives did they look for, how
>> many people were involved in that part of the whole 9/11 investigation...
>>
>> C'mon, Patrick. I'm all ears.
>>
>>> Start with identifying the source of the explosives you claim were used and tracing their path to the
>>> walls in the WTC.
>>
>> That's not my job.
>
> Since *you* are the one making the claim that it was a controlled demolition, it most certainly is "your
> job".
>
> You can't produce *any* evidence that the large qualtity of explosives required were sourced, obtained,
> transported, carried past security, or installed.
>
> You have none of the evidence required to show that explosives were used - and such evidence would be clear,
> obvious, and inarguable.
>
> You just don't have it.
>
> Come back when you learn something.
I have "evidence", Patrick. No one looked for explosives. So, in other words,
US government simply said "no explosives have been used" and that's that. US
government did not look specifically for explosives and then base their claims
on scientific evidence.
Sorry, Patrick, but that is not a proper investigation. And it smells like a conspiracy.
And it looks like you're the one involved in the mass cover-up of 9/11. Therein
may be "tens of thousands of people", not "in" the execution of 9/11.
You are definitely a bit dull and retarded, Patrick.
Seriously.
slika
<age...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:7c90068d-626c-46c8...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
CROATIA.
--
Even if it were true, so what? You're still a liar, tool86.
Not too bright, eh agent86, you are?
slika
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5hfae518pms3kctho...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:12:04 -0400, BDK <TopS...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <4ae4...@news.x-privat.org>, sl...@hotmail.com says...
>>>
>>> "chinagreenelvis" <chinagr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:42637b13-4a72-4029...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> And all you're capable of is posting, over and over again, the same
>>> >> ridiculous nonsensical 911 "stuff". Just "stuff" that any Jr. high kid
>>> >> would laugh at.
>>> >
>>> > And the more you post in response to this "stuff," the more attention
>>> > you bring to it. You shills are beginning to sound like broken
>>> > records, too. Seriously, I was here six months ago and bore witness to
>>> > an almost exact duplication of this thread. Why does this tennis match
>>> > continue?
>>>
>>> That's how Gov Shill operates, so he doesn't have to discuss facts.
>>>
>>> Typical technique for a coward.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So you consider anyone not insane enough to believe in 911 "troof" to be
>>a coward?
>>
>>Of course you do.
>
> Because you need courage to say stupid things in a public forum over and
> over again.
Like Hyman Brown? The guy who immidiately after 9/11 went on TV
to defend the "jet fuel melted the steel" bullshit theory? And was like
presented as someone who knew everything about WTC? "Chief engineer"?
Here is what Hyman said about the time he worked on WTC:
"It was my first job out of college, I was 25 years olf, and I was
the guy who sharpened the pencils... It was my job to open the
trailer and make coffee in the morning".
Wow, debunkers. Such "experts"!
Although, everything's good because Bloomberg will be NYC mayor
for the next 4 years. Just in case people do start asking questions about
9/11.
Therein lies the "courage" and "love for truth" of our GovShill.
And all of the debunkers around the world.
Animal03-
Yes, kooktard, the buildings were not designed for the dynamic loading
iimposed by the collapse....it is a simple concept for anyone with a IQ
above room temperature.......or that hasn't suffered through a croat
education.
BDK
He's like a supernova compared to you Sack. You're still like a
flashlight with dead batteries.
Welcome back, Sack.
george
> He's like a supernova compared to you Sack. You're still like a
> flashlight with dead batteries.
>
> Welcome back, Sack.
Its always nice to see them getting discharged from the mental wards.
sadly this one hasn't been treated
BDK
13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, gbl...@hnpl.net says...
Do they even have mental wards in the paradise that is Croatia?
Or do they do what they do here most of the time, just stick the poor
loon in jail and make them even worse?
Poor kooktards.
Iarnrod
> "Animal03-" <Wherew...@yesterday.com> wrote in messagenews:kI_Gm.309$v47...@newsfe23.iad...
> > slika wrote:
> >> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in messagenews:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...> >>>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
> >>>>news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
> >>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
Of course. Why do you think it's "retarded" to accept that things
break apart in an extreme collapse like what we saw? Why would the
99th floor alight perfectly intact on the rubble pile, kroatkook?
Explain how you get the laws of physics to look the other way while
your scenario is carried out.
Iarnrod
> Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
> been used on 9/11?
Yes.
None went off.
age...@justicemail.com
> <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
Brighter than you, croatiaboy.
BDK
@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, iar...@yahoo.com says...
But in Godzilla vs. Mothra, the top of the one tower came down in one
piece!! As a kooktard would expect it to happen in real life. I wonder
what Sacksoshitty thinks about the two little singing girls? Are they
part of a vast conspiracy, or are they dupes of the military industrial
complex?
slika
<age...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
news:d9dce0e4-eed1-4156...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Brighter than you, croatiaboy.
---
Who told you that?
BDK
Everyone. Except you, Sack. You're the last one to know how dim you are.
Iarnrod
> <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d9dce0e4-eed1-4156...@h26g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 5:24 am, "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7c90068d-626c-46c8...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 29, 2:39 am, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <4ae898c...@news.x-privat.org>, sl...@hotmail.com says...
> > > But at least we aren't gullible 911 kooktards.
> > > --
>
> > > BDK..
>
> > If one searches Google for "sl...@hotmail.com", you find that our new
> > buddy kooker posts to the "hr.xxx" newsgroups. And guess what "hr" is
> > the country code for....
>
> > CROATIA.
>
> > I think slika is our old buddy "croatiaboy" reincarnated.....
> > --
>
> > Even if it were true, so what? You're still a liar, tool86.
>
> > Not too bright, eh agent86, you are?
>
> Brighter than you, croatiaboy.
> ---
>
> Who told you that?
Science and evidence..
george
> Science and evidence
Both anathema to kooks.
Patrick Keenan
Yes, as you would know if you were familiar with the topic.
But you aren't, and have shown that you are just making things up.
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message news:huadndYPqvMKu2_X...@supernews.com...
Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.
Go ahead. I'm waiting.
C'mon, Patrick, why are you being such an asshole?
Cat caught your (lying) tongue? Or is it maybe that no one looked for
explosives? So in other words, when one would say "no explosives
have been used on 9/11", it would be... kind of... a... lie, maybe?
Because, there is no scientific evidence to back that claim up? Huh?
Patrick? Where have you gone? C'mon, don't be shy. I'll tell you again:
Read it to me, Patrick. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, Patrick.
Let's see who's is lying and who has been lying all these years. Mark Roberts
or Steven Jones.
And it lies upon you, Keenan. Right here. And right now.
GO! I'm all ears. Seriously.
slika
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:05a5e810-1682-44ea...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 3:33 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Science and evidence
Both anathema to kooks.
----
Then let everyone see your "science and evidence" and:
Read it to me, george. Please. In which portion of the NIST report do they
mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
used, how many people were involved, which agencies were involved, how
long and how careful did they look for explosives, give me charts, numbers,
formulas... ANYTHING, george.