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.
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!
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.
BDK
So you consider anyone not insane enough to believe in 911 "troof" to be
a coward?
Of course you do.
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?
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.
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......
rocket scientist
"Freedom Man" <lib...@once.net> wrote:
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
"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?
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...
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
"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
"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...>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
Iarnrod
> Have any scientific evidence which would prove that no explosives have
> been used on 9/11?
Yes.
None went off.
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.
Al Dykes
They didn't test for pixie dust, either. There is as much reason to
test for man-made demolition as there is to test for pixie dust.
There is no evidence or eyewitness account consistent with man-made
demolition.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
BDK
And very little between them, it appears.
rincewind
> 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.
>
> 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.
Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
"Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?
rincewind
> I BELIEVE FREEDOM FRIES HAS ME BLOCKED. PLEASE REPOST THIS MESSAGE SO
> HE CAN SEE MY REPSONCE TO HIS ARITHMETIC ERROR.
>
> In article <hbvfaf$p0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
> Freedom Man <libe...@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.
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
> - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
He will ignore you and post the entire thing again, you know this.
Amazing how he works out all the physics (even if he does make
careless mistakes) and yet doesn't consider the noise factor in the
explosions that would be necessary. The noise that NO ONE heard and
that weren't recorded on any of the MANY recordings of the collapses!
Patrick Keenan
Do your own homework.
>
In which portion of the NIST report do they
> mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
> used,
They found no evidence that explosives were used, but given that
fabrications such as yours are bandied about, they did test for them.
Since they found no evidence of explosives having being used, there is no
question that anyone sourced, transported, or installed them.
Have you considered either education or diagnosis?
-pk
BDK
@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?
rincewind
> In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
> > facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
> > "Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?
>
> Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?
Not very likely.
BDK
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Did you understand the post I was replying to?
rincewind
> In article <decdc454-b543-4063-b30e-c53801377664
> @c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 1:24 am, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > > In article <ce763f59-0ddb-4ef0-8538-4e621b6ac606
> > > @z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > > On Oct 23, 6:39 pm, Electra <honda9...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > Silly person. The moon landing were faked at Williard White's desert
> > > > facility under the control of Ernst Stravo Blofeld. Haven't you seen
> > > > "Diamonds Are Forever" which blew the whistle on the whole scheme?
>
> > > Wasn't Blofeld Larry Silverstein's cousin?
>
> > Not very likely.
>
> Did you understand the post I was replying to?
'fraid not, sorry.
BDK
@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Wow. How old are you?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/
rincewind
> In article <6f564777-be63-4716-8ae3-343325e1b650
> @g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
My apologies, I misread your post and thought you were asking if I
understood YOUR reference, not my original post. As for age, I'm old
enough to have seen DAF in theaters when it first came out!
slika
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message news:GMCdnaGoR6pLZWjX...@supernews.com...
So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
Names, agencies, methods used, pices of evidence upon such an investigation
has been concuted, references of the agents and agencies involved and most
important - a floor by floor analysis of both of the collapses.
Once again, Keenan: You are "right", I am "wrong". Just c/p it here. You don't
even have to use your own words, nothing. Don't have to be or act like an expert.
Just c/p it here.
If you fail to do so, you'll be proving that you indeed are a liar.
> In which portion of the NIST report do they
>> mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
>> used,
>
> They found no evidence that explosives were used, but given that fabrications such as yours are bandied
> about, they did test for them. Since they found no evidence of explosives having being used, there is no
> question that anyone sourced, transported, or installed them.
>
> Have you considered either education or diagnosis?
Then c/p here scientific evidence which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
no explosives have been used, Keenan.
Seriously, if you fail to do so, you will be proving that you indeed are a notorious liar.
And have been lying on purpose since 9.11.2001.
Beware, Keenan. All the hard work of Mark Roberts, James Meigs, Davin Coburn,
David Dunbar, people at JREF forums and all other debunkers is at stake here.
You fail to c/p here what I am asking you to, it will prove the fact that those
people are notorious liars and have been lying on purpose since 9.11.2001. too.
Just like you.
Because, I am not the one claiming "they collapsed without use of explosives".
YOU are the one claiming that. So, once again, I am asking you to copy paste here
scientific evidence which proves no explosives have been used. And the most
important thing - give us a floor by floor analysis of both of the towers.
110 floors x 2, destroyed in less than 60 seconds. (less than 30 each).
Go, Keenan. And beware of what's at stake here...
Iarnrod
> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in messagenews:GMCdnaGoR6pLZWjX...@supernews.com...> >> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in messagenews:huadndYPqvMKu2_X...@supernews.com...> >>>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in messagenews:dOGdnaIv4_AfGnLX...@supernews.com...> >>>>>> "Patrick Keenan" <t...@dev.null> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:cPednVFYcMZPDHHX...@supernews.com...
> >>>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4aec3125$2...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> >>>>>>>>news:j-OdnaBET4e4QHTX...@supernews.com...
>
> >>>>>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4ae77fe9$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>news:A9GdnfK6DvOPj3jX...@supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> "slika" <sl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4ae423cd$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
Yes, correct.
> All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
Already done.
> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place?
Because he is correct.
> When you
> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
It was scientifically proven at the moment of collapse when no
explosives went off.
> Names, agencies, methods used, pices of evidence upon such an investigation
> has been concuted, references of the agents and agencies involved and most
> important - a floor by floor analysis of both of the collapses.
All the floors above fell onto the floors below and crushed them.
There. Happy?
Why don't you tell us how you "think" a single office floor below
would have the load strength to resist 30, then 31, then 32, etc.,
collapsing floors above it? <chuckle>
If a 31-story building had its vertical supports severely damages and
a raging unfought fire above the ground floor. would you be surprised
if it all fell down and crush the undamaged single ground floor? Think
about it. Wait! You can't think, that's right! My bad.
> Once again, Keenan: You are "right", I am "wrong". Just c/p it here. You don't
> even have to use your own words, nothing. Don't have to be or act like an expert.
>
> Just c/p it here.
>
> If you fail to do so, you'll be proving that you indeed are a liar.
Each floor was crushed by the fallign massive debrid above it.
Simple.
Next?
> > In which portion of the NIST report do they
> >> mention the techniques used in order to find whether explosives have been
> >> used,
>
> > They found no evidence that explosives were used, but given that fabrications such as yours are bandied
> > about, they did test for them. Since they found no evidence of explosives having being used, there is no
> > question that anyone sourced, transported, or installed them.
>
> > Have you considered either education or diagnosis?
>
> Then c/p here scientific evidence which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that
> no explosives have been used, Keenan.
None went off. There is no such thing on our home planet as silent and
invisible explosives. Not sure about your home planet of Kookton.
Any further questions?
> Seriously, if you fail to do so, you will be proving that you indeed are a notorious liar.
> And have been lying on purpose since 9.11.2001.
No prob. Already done.
> Beware, Keenan. All the hard work of Mark Roberts, James Meigs, Davin Coburn,
> David Dunbar, people at JREF forums and all other debunkers is at stake here.
And confirmed.
> You fail to c/p here what I am asking you to, it will prove the fact that those
> people are notorious liars and have been lying on purpose since 9.11.2001. too.
You can stop worrying about that then. They have been proven correct
and you have been proven wrong.
> Because, I am not the one claiming "they collapsed without use of explosives".
> YOU are the one claiming that.
And he's been proven correct.
> So, once again, I am asking you to copy paste here
> scientific evidence which proves no explosives have been used. And the most
> important thing - give us a floor by floor analysis of both of the towers.
Done.
> 110 floors x 2, destroyed in less than 60 seconds. (less than 30 each).
Gravity is a bitch, ain't it.
> Go, Keenan. And beware of what's at stake here...
Your involuntary commitment to a Croatian mental hospital?
BDK
9d7e25...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
No big deal, I just didn't think you were so young you never saw it. I
worked at a hotel (Nevada Hotel and Casino, a real pit) that was built
on the parking lot where part of the car chase was filmed, and I went
into "Slumber, Inc" just to see what it looked like inside when I passed
it one day. I thought it was fake, but it really existed, with a
different name "Bunker brothers". It was exactly like it was in the
movie. The moon landing place was real too. I have no idea what it
really was, but parts were added to it for the movie.
A friend of mine is visible several times in the Circus Circus scenes.
His dad worked on the movie, and got him his first of only two parts.
Later on, he was in an episode of "Marcus Welby M.D." as a kid playing
baseball with the "guest star", who collapeses due to some mystery
ailment. That was the end of his Hollywood career.
BDK
@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, iar...@yahoo.com says...
His greatest fear, or it should be. I wonder what the Croatian mental
hospitals are like these days?
I bet they're just wonderful. A perfect place for Sack to spend a few
years in.
rincewind
> A friend of mine is visible several times in the Circus Circus scenes.
> His dad worked on the movie, and got him his first of only two parts.
> Later on, he was in an episode of "Marcus Welby M.D." as a kid playing
> baseball with the "guest star", who collapeses due to some mystery
> ailment. That was the end of his Hollywood career.
Let me guess, he's either in the gorilla/girl sequence or he's the kid
Tiffany beats out for the stuffed animal. ("One win? You're supposed
to get fifteen wins for that prize! Who's she, your mother?")
I liked the film, but it's got a couple of "hmmm," moments for me.
What kind of fake diamonds can take being subjected to intense heat,
but can be recognized as fakes almost immediately?
There's others, but that'll do for the moment.
BDK
@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
> On Nov 9, 1:13 pm, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
>
> > A friend of mine is visible several times in the Circus Circus scenes.
> > His dad worked on the movie, and got him his first of only two parts.
> > Later on, he was in an episode of "Marcus Welby M.D." as a kid playing
> > baseball with the "guest star", who collapeses due to some mystery
> > ailment. That was the end of his Hollywood career.
>
> Let me guess, he's either in the gorilla/girl sequence or he's the kid
> Tiffany beats out for the stuffed animal. ("One win? You're supposed
> to get fifteen wins for that prize! Who's she, your mother?")
No, he was just in the background, for a few seconds a couple of times.
He actually got a line on Welby, something like, "He said he didn't feel
good before we started playing!", or something like that. He's always
been kind of hyper, so sitting around all day waiting to shoot was
really too much for him, so he told his dad he didn't want to do it
anymore. He was supposed to come back for an ad, I think, but never did.
>
> I liked the film, but it's got a couple of "hmmm," moments for me.
> What kind of fake diamonds can take being subjected to intense heat,
> but can be recognized as fakes almost immediately?
It's a James Bond movie, you can't get too picky.
>
> There's others, but that'll do for the moment.
>
Have you ever seen an action type movie that didn't have something that
made you think, "WTF?"? I can't remember one. The movies lately drive me
nuts with the extended, seemingly never ending martial arts fighting
that goes on and on, and I keep hoping a gun comes out and finishes it
up.
rincewind
> In article <c643be4c-6ff6-43e2-a49a-9db1bd322803
> > I liked the film, but it's got a couple of "hmmm," moments for me.
> > What kind of fake diamonds can take being subjected to intense heat,
> > but can be recognized as fakes almost immediately?
>
> It's a James Bond movie, you can't get too picky.
No, but you can point them out and snicker.
>
>
>
> > There's others, but that'll do for the moment.
>
> Have you ever seen an action type movie that didn't have something that
> made you think, "WTF?"? I can't remember one. The movies lately drive me
> nuts with the extended, seemingly never ending martial arts fighting
> that goes on and on, and I keep hoping a gun comes out and finishes it
> up.
Yeah, they all have at least one. It doesn't bother me, but I enjoy
pointing them out or having them pointed out. Not like Harlan Ellison
who once claimed that "Lethal Weapon" was ruined for him by the
knowledge that Riggs could not possibly have run as far as the "bus
crash site" to the "exit ramp" and caught up with a sports car because
Harlan knew LA and knew how far apart those two areas were.
BDK
@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
> On Nov 10, 12:35 am, BDK <TopSh...@sanity.com> wrote:
> > In article <c643be4c-6ff6-43e2-a49a-9db1bd322803
>
> > > I liked the film, but it's got a couple of "hmmm," moments for me.
> > > What kind of fake diamonds can take being subjected to intense heat,
> > > but can be recognized as fakes almost immediately?
> >
> > It's a James Bond movie, you can't get too picky.
>
> No, but you can point them out and snicker.
>
Yeah, but you can't let them spoil the rest of it for you by going to
far with the "It's not like this!". The radios and how they were used in
"Die Hard" annoyed the shit out of me, but I still liked the movie.
> >
> >
> >
> > > There's others, but that'll do for the moment.
> >
> > Have you ever seen an action type movie that didn't have something that
> > made you think, "WTF?"? I can't remember one. The movies lately drive me
> > nuts with the extended, seemingly never ending martial arts fighting
> > that goes on and on, and I keep hoping a gun comes out and finishes it
> > up.
>
> Yeah, they all have at least one. It doesn't bother me, but I enjoy
> pointing them out or having them pointed out. Not like Harlan Ellison
> who once claimed that "Lethal Weapon" was ruined for him by the
> knowledge that Riggs could not possibly have run as far as the "bus
> crash site" to the "exit ramp" and caught up with a sports car because
> Harlan knew LA and knew how far apart those two areas were.
>
>
Oh yeah, if you know the city/area, it's not helpful to losing yourself
in the story. Kind of like the show "Vegas". Dan Tanna had a magical car
that could transport itself for several miles, just by turning a corner!
There were a couple of movies shot there while I lived there that did
stuff like that, and I had a hard time getting past it then, but now,
it's part of the fun.
rincewind
> In article <d092b2d7-af84-40a5-b403-68aeb9fd1012
> @a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
"The Rose" did something similar. When Bette Midler is going into the
recording studio, the neon sculpture in the lobby gives away the
location of the building as Lexington Ave. (If you know NYC) but when
she leaves, she's on 7th Ave near Times Sq.
BDK
cae3db...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com
says...hat?
There are so many instances of it happening in films, it's always a
surprise when it happens and you have to wonder, "Why did they do that?"
There's a movie shot in Vegas where the lead (Can't remember who it was,
or the name of the movie anymore) walks into a department store, about a
half mile from where I lived, and comes out in an entirely different
neighborhood. I always wondered what caused them to do that. Did they
just forget, or the shot didn't come out?
rincewind
> In article <b634fd2e-0de2-4278-85f3-
> cae3db7be...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com
The two locations looked goo and they figured it would only matter to
the few people in the Las Vegas area who were paying attention to the
background.
BDK
@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Maybe, but I wonder why they used the second place, as the first place
was much better for camera set up, and had less traffic than the second
place, which was amazingly busy from opening to closing every day. It
was a place almost like Wal-Mart, where you could get anything from
groceries to guns for a good price. I bought my first gun there. A real
POS, but it would have worked, if I had needed it. I was shocked to hear
they had gone out of business, it hardly seems possible with the
business it had. I heard the kids took it over and soon ran it into the
ground.
rincewind
> In article <7b07ddef-6367-4d76-994a-b9e33aef6f50
> @s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
Sorry to hear that. Not having seen the film or the area(s) in
question, I can't judge whether it made sense to change locales that
way.
rincewind
> > Do your own homework.
>
> So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
>
> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
I think it's been explained that they didn't so a "scientific" search
to rule out explosives because, and this is important, there was no
evidence available before or during the collapses that explosives had
played any part! Do a Google search of any real "controlled
demolition" and you will see (and hear) what sort of explosives would
be required to bring down a building. If explosives of that sort had
been used in 9/11, half of lower Manhattan would have reported it! You
will also notice that these explosives are set off before the actual
collapse not during it. There was no indication of explosives,
therefore there was no need to "scientifically" test the rubble to
rule them out.
BDK
@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Well judging by some of the pilots that they pick up and put on the air,
and ones they pass on, (NBC is famous for passing up hit show after hit
show, like CSI, for probably the best example of cluelessness) you have
to wonder about the people who decide things in the movie/TV business.
In the late 80's to early 90's, there was a show I used to watch where
they showed failed pilots, and the ones they passed for shows that
practically screamed "Three episodes" over just amazed me.
rincewind
> In article <fc0d5ace-0ef5-44ab-890e-e436f7e08278
> @n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
I remember reading about an attempt to make "Red Dwarf" into an
American series. Of course, they had to change everything about Lister
that made him interesting and turned him into a beach bum instead.
Then there's the story that John Cleese (star of "Fawlty Towers") was
at an American party when a producer told him that they'd picked up
the option for an American version of "Fawlty Towers." Cleese
mentioned that it had been tried and failed. The producer said they'd
figured out what was wrong with the premise... they'd written out
Basil!
BDK
cb54d0...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
They do it all the time, make a good, or even great, pilot, then go and
mess it up, by recasting (Probably the least harmful thing they can do,
unless they just force some bozo onto the show because he's a big shot's
son or something), or they just totally mess up the whole point of the
show, trying to make it trendy, or a buzz generator. One of the all
times best sitcom pilots I ever saw was a show full of unknowns working
at an ISP. It was really funny, and they totally changed it into a sort
of "The Office" clone that wasn't funny at all, and reshot it, and it
rightfully got passed on. The people who made it should have taken it
and waited for one of the networks to get as desperate as NBC is and
offer it as a cheap summer replacement, and see what happens. If they
could have made a half dozen episodes of it, I bet it would have hit
before the run was over. NBC at this point must be wondering how to get
out of the whole Leno/Conan thing without pissing one or both of them
off. If I had a say, I would say goodbye to Jay, he lost his way since
he got the Tonight Show anyway, and just leave Conan alone, eventually
he'll be ok.
slika
"rincewind" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fec3e7b-9b68-402c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Do your own homework.
>>
>> So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
>> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
>>
>> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
>> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
>> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
>
> I think it's been explained that they didn't so a "scientific" search
> to rule out explosives because, and this is important, there was no
> evidence available before or during the collapses that explosives had
> played any part!
So, you believe that no explosives have been used, because someone
said that there was no need to search for explosives?
Is that what you're saying, ricewind?
First evidence is the speed of the collapses. I want you to explain how
can 110 storeys of steel and concrete turn into dust in less than 20 seconds?
I would like to know, how can 110th floor travel 1300ft in 20 seconds, when it
has about 80 untouched, undamaged floors beneath itself.
So, that's why I am asking "can you provide a floor by floor analysis". I didn't ask
YOU to come up with it, dumbass. I asked you to go and look at all your "scientific"
data and all that work from your "top notch experts" (who are, unlike kooks' experts,
very "professional and credible"), and find a reasonable explanation as to how can 110th
floor of one of the towers travel 1300ft in less than 20, hell 15 seconds, with 80+ and 70+
untouched, undamaged floors beneath it.
Mind you, that's a speed of almost 6 floors per second. A tad too fast for a "structural
collapse", wouldn't you agree? Having in mind 70+ and 80+ untouched floors beneath
both impact points.
Do a Google search of any real "controlled
> demolition" and you will see (and hear) what sort of explosives would
> be required to bring down a building. If explosives of that sort had
> been used in 9/11, half of lower Manhattan would have reported it! You
> will also notice that these explosives are set off before the actual
> collapse not during it. There was no indication of explosives,
> therefore there was no need to "scientifically" test the rubble to
> rule them out.
Leave explosives, thermite, thermate, conspiracies and everything else aside.
I am asking you to go and check within official "data" and find a floor by floor
analysis of both of the collapses, and some strong, detailed scientific evidence
which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that indeed no explosives have been
found.
If you stick to what you've said, "they didn't do a "scientific" search to rule out explosive",
please explain me how can "we didn't hear explosions in videos" or "we won't be looking
for explosives because there is now way we will find any, 'thats absurd', is more credible
than detailed, scientific, professional evidence and work?
Please explain, ricewind. Tell me how can almost "hearsay" and "no, because we said so"
be more credible than scientific evidence, huh? If you claim that no explosives have been
used, please back your claim with scientific evidence. If you don't have scientific evidence,
you're either a moron or a liar.
There is no way around it, ricewind.
So, what will it be, ricewind? Scientific evidence, or "oh well, there was no need
to look for explosives" bullshit?
If you say the latter, then I'd like you to find a floor by floor analysis of both of the
towers, in which it is explained in detail exactly what was going on with each and
every floor of both of the towers. So, that's 220 floors.
Capisci, ricewind?
george
> Capisci, ricewind?
Still with the same old shit eh.
It's all been explained
Iarnrod
> "rincewind" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5fec3e7b-9b68-402c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > Do your own homework.
>
> >> So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
> >> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
>
> >> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
> >> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
> >> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
>
> > I think it's been explained that they didn't so a "scientific" search
> > to rule out explosives because, and this is important, there was no
> > evidence available before or during the collapses that explosives had
> > played any part!
>
> So, you believe that no explosives have been used, because someone
> said that there was no need to search for explosives?
No, sack-o-shitty, pay attention: We believe no explosives were used
because it is proven that none went off. NONE. There were no
explosions going off at the time of the collapse. That rules out
explosives.
Capisce?
> First evidence is the speed of the collapses. I want you to explain how
> can 110 storeys of steel and concrete turn into dust in less than 20 seconds?
> I would like to know, how can 110th floor travel 1300ft in 20 seconds, when it
> has about 80 untouched, undamaged floors beneath itself.
You are exceedingly stupid,
> So, that's why I am asking "can you provide a floor by floor analysis". I didn't ask
> YOU to come up with it, dumbass.
I already posted it, sack-o.
> I asked you to go and look at all your "scientific"
> data and all that work from your "top notch experts" (who are, unlike kooks' experts,
> very "professional and credible"), and find a reasonable explanation as to how can 110th
> floor of one of the towers travel 1300ft in less than 20, hell 15 seconds, with 80+ and 70+
> untouched, undamaged floors beneath it.
Done.
> Mind you, that's a speed of almost 6 floors per second. A tad too fast for a "structural
> collapse", wouldn't you agree?
No. Cite. Prove that it should have been slower. Prove your theory
that the law of gracvity was suspended in lower Manhattan that day and
that Wile E Coyote was the perp.
> Having in mind 70+ and 80+ untouched floors beneath
> both impact points.
Ummm, shithead, what's below got crushed when what was above collapsed
on it.
Explain to us your theory that the strength of the steel on the 70th
floor somehow should have helped the 81st floor withstand the dropping
of a 30-story office building on top of it. <chuckle>
rincewind
> "rincewind" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5fec3e7b-9b68-402c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > Do your own homework.
>
> >> So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
> >> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
>
> >> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
> >> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
> >> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
>
> > I think it's been explained that they didn't so a "scientific" search
> > to rule out explosives because, and this is important, there was no
> > evidence available before or during the collapses that explosives had
> > played any part!
>
> So, you believe that no explosives have been used, because someone
> said that there was no need to search for explosives?
>
> Is that what you're saying, ricewind?
No. I'm saying I believe no explosives have been used because there's
no evidence of explosives being used in the physical evidence (ie, the
multitude of videos of the collapses.)
> First evidence is the speed of the collapses. I want you to explain how
> can 110 storeys of steel and concrete turn into dust in less than 20 seconds?
> I would like to know, how can 110th floor travel 1300ft in 20 seconds, when it
> has about 80 untouched, undamaged floors beneath itself.
One, the "dust" was tons of drywall used to separate the various
offices. Two, as far as I know, there was no structural concrete IN
the Towers. Three, dynamic (undamaged floors above the impact) vs.
static (undamaged floors BELOW the impact)... static loses, every
time. Are you suggesting that the 80 floors should have somehow
stopped the tons of dynamic force coming down on top of it?
> So, that's why I am asking "can you provide a floor by floor analysis". I didn't ask
> YOU to come up with it, dumbass. I asked you to go and look at all your "scientific"
> data and all that work from your "top notch experts" (who are, unlike kooks' experts,
> very "professional and credible"), and find a reasonable explanation as to how can 110th
> floor of one of the towers travel 1300ft in less than 20, hell 15 seconds, with 80+ and 70+
> untouched, undamaged floors beneath it.
You've been told. Dynamic force vs. Static force. Dynamic wins.
> Mind you, that's a speed of almost 6 floors per second. A tad too fast for a "structural
> collapse", wouldn't you agree? Having in mind 70+ and 80+ untouched floors beneath
> both impact points.
Also, don't forget that each floor crushed by the dynamic load added
itself to the load.
> Do a Google search of any real "controlled
>
> > demolition" and you will see (and hear) what sort of explosives would
> > be required to bring down a building. If explosives of that sort had
> > been used in 9/11, half of lower Manhattan would have reported it! You
> > will also notice that these explosives are set off before the actual
> > collapse not during it. There was no indication of explosives,
> > therefore there was no need to "scientifically" test the rubble to
> > rule them out.
>
> Leave explosives, thermite, thermate, conspiracies and everything else aside.
> I am asking you to go and check within official "data" and find a floor by floor
> analysis of both of the collapses, and some strong, detailed scientific evidence
> which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that indeed no explosives have been
> found.
No explosives were found because no demolition charges were heard (or
recorded).
> If you stick to what you've said, "they didn't do a "scientific" search to rule out explosive",
> please explain me how can "we didn't hear explosions in videos" or "we won't be looking
> for explosives because there is now way we will find any, 'thats absurd', is more credible
> than detailed, scientific, professional evidence and work?
>
> Please explain, ricewind. Tell me how can almost "hearsay" and "no, because we said so"
> be more credible than scientific evidence, huh? If you claim that no explosives have been
> used, please back your claim with scientific evidence. If you don't have scientific evidence,
> you're either a moron or a liar.
The "scientific evidence" is in the video record. There are no
explosions heard, therefore there were no explosives to rule out. I
won't reduce myself to your level by bringing up what names YOU could
be called for failing to understand that.
> There is no way around it, ricewind.
>
> So, what will it be, ricewind? Scientific evidence, or "oh well, there was no need
> to look for explosives" bullshit?
>
> If you say the latter, then I'd like you to find a floor by floor analysis of both of the
> towers, in which it is explained in detail exactly what was going on with each and
> every floor of both of the towers. So, that's 220 floors.
>
> Capisci, ricewind?
Here's a floor by floor analysis; compromised vertical supports gave
way, big fucking heavy weight came down on the undamaged building. Big
fucking heavy weight tore up a floor. Big fucking heavy weight <plus>
mass from crushed floor then moved on to the next floor and tore it
up. Big fucking heavy weight <plus> mass from two crushed floors then
moved onto the NEXT floor and so forth and so on. The fact that there
were 80 static floors to be crushed isn't significant because the
lower floors couldn't do anything to stop the big fucking heavy weight
that was coming down!
rincewind
> In article <f72f3156-e42a-4263-b9db-
> cb54d075d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, edrho...@hotmail.com says...
I remember watching an "Ironside" which was obviously a pilot for a
series with Desi Arnez (no, I'm not kidding) as a medical examiner,
living on a houseboat, investigating an impossible murder. A few years
later, they picked up "Quincy," I guess it was more acceptable with
Jack Klugman instead of a middle aged Cuban.
BDK
>
> "rincewind" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5fec3e7b-9b68-402c...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> > Do your own homework.
> >>
> >> So, you are "right", I am "wrong". All I asked you to do is to c/p here a part which
> >> definitely proves you "right", but you continually refuse to do so?
> >>
> >> Tell me, Keenan, why should anyone believe you in the first place? When you
> >> can't even c/p here a part of the NIST repost or part of an investigation in which
> >> it is scientifically proven that no explosives have been used.
> >
> > I think it's been explained that they didn't so a "scientific" search
> > to rule out explosives because, and this is important, there was no
> > evidence available before or during the collapses that explosives had
> > played any part!
>
> So, you believe that no explosives have been used, because someone
> said that there was no need to search for explosives?
>
> Is that what you're saying, ricewind?
No, that's what you keep saying.
>
> First evidence is the speed of the collapses. I want you to explain how
> can 110 storeys of steel and concrete turn into dust in less than 20 seconds?
> I would like to know, how can 110th floor travel 1300ft in 20 seconds, when it
> has about 80 untouched, undamaged floors beneath itself.
>
> So, that's why I am asking "can you provide a floor by floor analysis". I didn't ask
> YOU to come up with it, dumbass. I asked you to go and look at all your "scientific"
> data and all that work from your "top notch experts" (who are, unlike kooks' experts,
> very "professional and credible"), and find a reasonable explanation as to how can 110th
> floor of one of the towers travel 1300ft in less than 20, hell 15 seconds, with 80+ and 70+
> untouched, undamaged floors beneath it.
>
> Mind you, that's a speed of almost 6 floors per second. A tad too fast for a "structural
> collapse", wouldn't you agree? Having in mind 70+ and 80+ untouched floors beneath
> both impact points.
BWHAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious. And just so kooky. As expected from you,
Sacksoshitty.
>
> Do a Google search of any real "controlled
> > demolition" and you will see (and hear) what sort of explosives would
> > be required to bring down a building. If explosives of that sort had
> > been used in 9/11, half of lower Manhattan would have reported it! You
> > will also notice that these explosives are set off before the actual
> > collapse not during it. There was no indication of explosives,
> > therefore there was no need to "scientifically" test the rubble to
> > rule them out.
>
> Leave explosives, thermite, thermate, conspiracies and everything else aside.
> I am asking you to go and check within official "data" and find a floor by floor
> analysis of both of the collapses, and some strong, detailed scientific evidence
> which proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that indeed no explosives have been
> found.
>
> If you stick to what you've said, "they didn't do a "scientific" search to rule out explosive",
> please explain me how can "we didn't hear explosions in videos" or "we won't be looking
> for explosives because there is now way we will find any, 'thats absurd', is more credible
> than detailed, scientific, professional evidence and work?
>
> Please explain, ricewind. Tell me how can almost "hearsay" and "no, because we said so"
> be more credible than scientific evidence, huh? If you claim that no explosives have been
> used, please back your claim with scientific evidence. If you don't have scientific evidence,
> you're either a moron or a liar.
He's right, and you're both, an extreme moron, and a liar. But that's
typical of the kooktardic form of loon.
>
> There is no way around it, ricewind.
>
> So, what will it be, ricewind? Scientific evidence, or "oh well, there was no need
> to look for explosives" bullshit?
>
> If you say the latter, then I'd like you to find a floor by floor analysis of both of the
> towers, in which it is explained in detail exactly what was going on with each and
> every floor of both of the towers. So, that's 220 floors.
>
> Capisci, ricewind?
>
>
>
BWHAHAHAHA! Even for a kooktard, you're thinking is very warped.
BDK
@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
You would think even a moron of his caliber would be able to understand
a simple explanation like the above one.
But his "mind" is so damaged, and his faith is so strong, he's
terminally insane at this point.
BDK
@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
Yeah, I remember that episode of the show, my dad always watched the
Raymond Burr stuff. I wonder what he would have said if he had known he
was gay? He died before that really came out. Desi Aranaz with that
accent would have been hilarious as an ME. Even weirder than Bing Crosby
would have been as Columbo, or Frank Sinatra as Dirty Harry. There are
some very strange castings that almost happened in the movie/TV
business.
They have these "pilots in a show" all the time. The older ones I can
remember off the top of my head are the Robert Lansing/Terri Garr
episode of Star Trek, and the Issac Hayes/Lou Gossett episode of The
Rockford Files. That Rockford was one of my favorite episodes of that
show. I remember thinking when I watched it the first time, "I really
hope they make this a series!" But, it never went anywhere.
A lot of sitcoms have had them too.
It's a cheap and easy way to crank out a pilot I guess, but most of the
stink, big time.