911 and the Demo Truth
Kirby M. Wilson
> http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
> http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmomodel.htm
If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
stop their terrorist activities
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/cstillwell.DTL
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/
Androcles
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
"Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4502ba3e-884d-4f25...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
hhc314
>
> If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> stop their terrorist activities
>
Idiot!
Harry C.
knews4...@yahoo.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
> >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom...
>
> If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> stop their terrorist activities
>
P. Maffia
the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
knowledgeable people.
Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
only are you the moron, but insane as well.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d913bb2-7bf4-44f1...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
>the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>
>Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
>knowledgeable people.
>
>Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
>only are you the moron, but insane as well.
I doubht if he is actually "insane"..but schitzophrenic...oh hell yes.
>
><knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6d913bb2-7bf4-44f1...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>None of your loser sites address the evidence.
>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
>
>On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
>> >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom...
>>
>> If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
>> stop their terrorist activities
>>
>> http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attackshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Mythshttp://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-mythshttp://www.debunk911myths.org/http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theorieshttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theoryhttp://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
YouDontOwnMe
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:28:45 -0700, "P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over
again by
>> knowledgeable people.
>>
<snip>
> Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
> illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
> unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
> proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the
clean end.
That's funny to begin with, but even funnier because of its truth.
----
Getting to the reason for my post:
Posted without comment:
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/pentagon_hole2.jpg
Not Paul Thomas
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
>
>
>> That's funny to begin with, but even funnier because of its truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> either end.
>
>
I'm going to tell you anyway. When I answered this post of yours.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
> the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>
Guilty as charged.
> Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
> knowledgeable people.
>
Liar.
> Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
> only are you the moron, but insane as well.
>
You are a liar and are not addressing the facts in the article.
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6d913bb2-7bf4-44f1...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> None of your loser sites address the evidence.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20...
>
> On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
> > >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom...
>
> > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > stop their terrorist activities
>
> >http://www.911myths.com/http://www.debunking911.com/links.htmhttp://e...
P. Maffia
has been proven false many times over.
Your insanity on this issue has gone from a simple "controlled demolition"
without ever being able to show how that was accomplished without anyone
seeing the installation of explosives.all the way to mini nukes being used.
When someone tries to explain something by concocting preposterous
scenarios, they can only be living in a fantasy land , a land occupied by
children and madmen.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8048c0f-31c9-4b81...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Another sign of madness is when someone believes something to be true that
> has been proven false many times over.
>
> Your insanity on this issue has gone from a simple "controlled demolition"
> without ever being able to show how that was accomplished without anyone
> seeing the installation of explosives.all the way to mini nukes being used.
>
They were likely installed when it was built.
They knew it would have to come down some day.
Why don't YOU explain the elevated tritium levels after the
"collapse?"
> When someone tries to explain something by concocting preposterous
> scenarios, they can only be living in a fantasy land , a land occupied by
> children and madmen.
>
Yea, USAma bin (CIA) Laden and 19 ragheads is quite fantasy.
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e8048c0f-31c9-4b81...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 14, 10:28 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
> > the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>
> So telling the truth over and over makes me insane?
> Guilty as charged.
>
> > Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
> > knowledgeable people.
>
> Liar.
>
> > Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
> > only are you the moron, but insane as well.
>
> You are a liar and are not addressing the facts in the article.
>
Are you going to address the facts in the article or not?
pyotr filipivich
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> reported Elvis on Tue, 15 Sep 2009
04:04:06 -0700 in misc.survivalism:
>On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 22:28:45 -0700, "P. Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net>
>wrote:
>
>>One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
>>the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>>
>>Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
>>knowledgeable people.
>>
>>Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
>>only are you the moron, but insane as well.
>
>I doubht if he is actually "insane"..but schitzophrenic...oh hell yes.
Considering that it has been reported that 35% of Democrats (I
don't know the percentage for Obama Administration staffers) believe
the truther claims ...
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Daniel
> On Sep 14, 10:28 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
> > the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>
> So telling the truth over and over makes me insane?
> Guilty as charged.
>
> > Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
> > knowledgeable people.
>
> Liar.
>
> > Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
> > only are you the moron, but insane as well.
>
> You are a liar and are not addressing the facts in the article.
There need to be facts to address first, you stupid shit.
knews4...@yahoo.com
"Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
Dumb ass.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
paulthomascpa
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote
> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
Yeah, real fact like.
Opinions are not fact.
knews4...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> Yeah, real fact like.
>
> Opinions are not fact.
Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
Get your head out of your ass.
You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
Wake the fuck up.
paulthomascpa
AllYou!
news:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on the
WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
itself is in any way official.
In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did. What
they actually said is accurately described in
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
Of even more significance is that you've never explained your point
in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
fell.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
> > <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
> >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> >> Yeah, real fact like.
>
> >> Opinions are not fact.
>
> > Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
> > Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
> > Get your head out of your ass.
> > You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
> > Wake the fuck up.
>
> As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
> contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on the
> WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
> itself is in any way official.
>
Liar.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
> In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did. What
> they actually said is accurately described inhttp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
>
Sure.
"Acid rain" in the building?
> Of even more significance is that you've never explained your point
> in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
> fell.
English?
Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used, NIST
also ignored testimonial evidence.
NIST’s Twin Towers Report: In its 2005 report on the Twin Towers, NIST
ignored dozens of testimonies provided by reporters, police officers,
and WTC employees, along with 118 testimonies provided by members of
the Fire Department of New York. [38] NIST even explicitly denied the
existence of these reports, saying that there “was no evidence
(collected by . . . the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or
explosions” that would have suggested that explosives were going off.
[39]
However, when a group of scholars including scientists and a lawyer
called NIST on this false statement, NIST refined its meaning, saying:
NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of
firefighters (500 interviews). . . . Taken as a whole, the interviews
did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the
collapse of the WTC Towers. [40]
So, although NIST had said in its report that there was no testimonial
evidence for explosives, it now seemed to be saying that, because only
118 out of 500 reported explosions, the testimonies, “taken as a
whole,” do not support the idea that explosions were going off, so
that NIST had been justified in claiming that there was no testimonial
evidence to support the idea that explosives had been used.
Imagine an investigation of a murder on the streets of San Francisco.
Of the 100 people who were at the scene at the time, 25 of them
reported seeing Pete Smith shoot the victim. But the police release
Pete Smith, saying that, taken as a whole, the testimonies did not
point to his guilt. That would be NIST-style forensic science.
Reports from People Outside WTC 7: NIST continued this approach in its
WTC 7 report. There had been several credible reports of explosions. A
reporter for the New York Daily News, said:
[T]here was a rumble. The building's top row of windows popped
out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then
the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the
building sunk into a rising cloud of gray. [41]
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer said:
I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. . . . [A]ll of a
sudden. . . I looked up, and . . . [t]he thing started pealing in on
itself. . . . I started running . . . and the whole time you're
hearing “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.” [42]
Reports from Hess and Jennings from Inside WTC 7: Besides ignoring
these and other reports of explosions made by people outside Building
7, NIST distorted the testimony of two highly credible men who were
inside: Michael Hess, who was New York City’s corporation counsel, and
Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services
Department of the New York City Housing Authority.
Daniel
Cite? And please use a credible cite, not one of your truther websites
Daniel
> On Sep 16, 1:03 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
> > > <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > >>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> > >> Yeah, real fact like.
>
> > >> Opinions are not fact.
>
> > > Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
> > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20...
> > > Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
> > > Get your head out of your ass.
> > > You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
> > > Wake the fuck up.
>
> > As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
> > contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on the
> > WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
> > itself is in any way official.
>
>
> > In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did. What
> > they actually said is accurately described inhttp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
>
> Sure.
> "Acid rain" in the building?
>
> > Of even more significance is that you've never explained your point
> > in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
> > fell.
>
> English?
>
> Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
>
> Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used,
There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used, and NONE of
you truthers can explain how explosives were used.
knews4...@yahoo.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
> There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used,
Liar.
<snip>
Nanothermite Residue: What was that? A report by several scientists,
including chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, showed
that the WTC dust contained unreacted nanothermite, which – unlike
ordinary thermite, which is an incendiary – is a high explosive. This
report by Harrit and his colleagues, who included Steven Jones and
Kevin Ryan, did not appear until 2009, [26] several months after the
publication of NIST’s final report in November 2008.
But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for
residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and
Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection
Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be
undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no
doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:
High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure,
producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural
members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely
demolished. [27]
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC
7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly
hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a
fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started
in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives,
such as nanothermite.
But when asked whether it had, NIST said No. A reporter asked Michael
Newman, a NIST spokesman, about this failure, saying: “[W]hat about
that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of
explosives?” Newman replied: “Right, because there was no evidence of
that.” “But,” asked the reporter “how can you know there’s no evidence
if you don’t look for it first?” Newman replied: “If you’re looking
for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the
taxpayers’ money.” [29] (You couldn’t make this stuff up.)
When Shyam Sunder, who headed up NIST’s investigation of the WTC
buildings, gave his press conference in August of 2008 – at which he
announced that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is
no longer a mystery” – he began by saying:
Before I tell you what we found, I’d like to tell you what we did
not find. We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to
bring the building down. [30]
By making this point first, Sunder indicated that this was NIST’s most
important conclusion – just as it had been NIST’s most important
conclusion about the Twin Towers. However, although Sunder claimed
that this conclusion was based on good science, a conclusion has no
scientific validity if it can be reached only by ignoring half the
evidence.
Molten Metal: In addition to the ignored evidence already pointed out,
NIST also, in its investigation of the WTC, ignored reports that the
rubble contained lots of molten metal – which most people described as
molten steel. For example, firefighter Philip Ruvolo, speaking of the
Twin Towers, said: “You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel,
molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you're in a
foundry, like lava." [31]
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, which was involved in
the clean-up operation, said that he saw pools of “literally molten
steel.” [32]
However, when John Gross, one of the main authors of NIST’s reports,
was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I
challenge your “basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel,”
adding: “I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said
so.”[33]
However, in addition to Ruvolo and Tully, the eyewitnesses who said so
included:
• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that
designed the Twin Towers. [34]
• Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for
Environmental Health. [35]
• Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public
Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly
after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences. [36]
• Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at
WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition,
Inc., which was involved in the clean-up. [37]
And yet John Gross suggested that no credible witnesses had reported
molten steel. That appears to have been a gross lie.
<snip>?
>and NONE of
> you truthers can explain how explosives were used.
Ignoring the evidence will not make it go away.
There are numerous explanations as to how they could have been used.
Funny thing, ha ha, that ALL the evidence was carted off to China to
be melted down.
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 16, 3:33=A0pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 4:15=A0pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 16, 1:03=A0pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.=
>com,
>> > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>> > > > On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
>> > > > <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> > > >>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>>
>> > > >> Yeah, real fact like.
>>
>> > > >> Opinions are not fact.
>>
>> > > > Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
>GRI20...
>> > > > Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
>> > > > Get your head out of your ass.
>> > > > You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
>> > > > Wake the fuck up.
>>
>> > > As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
>> > > contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on the
>> > > WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
>> > > itself is in any way official.
>>
>=3DGRI20...
>>
>> > > In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did. =A0What
>> > > they actually said is accurately described inhttp://www.wpi.edu/News/=
>Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
>>
>> > Sure.
>> > "Acid rain" in the building?
>>
>> > > Of even more significance is that you've never explained your point
>> > > in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
>> > > fell.
>>
>> > English?
>>
>> > Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
>>
>> > Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used,
>>
>Nice loser snippage.
>0914&articleId=3D15201
>
>> There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used,
>
>Liar.
><snip>
>Nanothermite Residue: What was that? A report by several scientists,
That's called rust and aluminum. There's lots of that all over the WTC
site.
Here is a suumary of why the experiment Herrit bases his calim of
thernite on is bullsh*t. What Herrit has is paint chips.
The aim of the experiment is to determine whether thermite was
present.
The thermite reaction contains its own oxygen source.
The thermite reaction will proceed in an oxygen-free atmosphere.
Combustion will not.
Therefore, in order to distinguish between a thermite reaction and
combustion, calorimetry must be carried out in an oxygen-free
atmosphere.
The calorimetry carried out in the paper was in an
oxygen-containing atmosphere. Therefore, the calorimetry cannot be
taken as evidence of a thermite reaction.
For Harrit et al to claim that their results are evidence of a
thermite reaction, they appear to be assuming that any real
scientists reading their paper are, rather than are not,
stupid. Sadly for them, we aren't.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
knews4...@yahoo.com
> In article <4cd3136e-efef-4397-a9cb-de922448c...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
You don't get off that easy.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
<snip>
Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was
right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust
produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company
refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not
resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the
RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche
Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this
signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” [20] This meant, the
RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles.” [21] The study even showed
that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal
building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning
almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]
The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at
which lead would have undergone vaporization” [23] – meaning 1,749°C
(3,180°F). [24]
Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose
of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.”
Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this
study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was
especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it
reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F). [25]
NIST, however, did not mention either of these studies, even though
the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.
<snip>
"Office fires" don't do this.
EVERYTHING including the "miracle" of three steel frame buildings
collapsing in ONE DAY from "office fires," when it NEVER happened
before in history, points to controlled demolition.
Wake up.
Your government is not your friend.
Your media is bought and paid for by the criminals of 9-11.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Why don't you read the article before you open your fat mouth?
<snip>
Physical Evidence of Explosives
Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that
explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.
Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7
that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese.
Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the
investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away,
but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to
melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an
understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could
not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about
1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]
The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the
FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused]
this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of
NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would
address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA]
report.” [18]
But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this
piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even
claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been
recovered. [19]
This piece of steel, moreover, was only a small portion of the
evidence, ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.
<snip>
And ignored by ignoramuses like you.
knews4...@yahoo.com
So sites that cite the "truth" are "truther" websites so they are not
valid?
How convenient.
AllYou!
news:9e2bc15f-071f-43ff...@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> You don't get off that easy.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
You've been down this road before, and it always leads to the very
same conclusion. The fact is that your scientific evidence is
nonsense, because your scientists are nonsense, and can't even
confirm that the samples thy tested ever even came from the WTC.
Some idiot "says" that she gathered some dust a couple of weeks
after 911 from somewhere in NYC, and yet, in your world, that
suffices as scientific evidence gathering.
You, and your fellow idiots, can't even concoct a single story that
holds together. You claim that there's evidence of a controlled
demolition using thermite, and yet, you ignore how thermite works on
steel. Moreover, you can't ever explain how an controlled
demolition could cause a building to fall as the WTC did by melting
the steel instead of by cutting through it.
And most of all, you've got no credible theory on how all those
explosives got there. It's take a monumental effort to place all of
those exactly where they've got to be in order to accomplish that
demolition, and that's if it was done while the building was being
erected. To do so after it was built would be virtually impossible,
and yet, not one person has ever claimed to be part of that effort.
Not one engineer, not one technician, not one laborer, not one of
anyone. None.
Wake up and smell the coffee. All you're doing is proving what a
fool you are.
AllYou!
news:e4ed3121-22cd-4004...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Sep 16, 1:03 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
>>> <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>>
>>>> Yeah, real fact like.
>>
>>>> Opinions are not fact.
>>
>>> Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
>>> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20...
>>> Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
>>> Get your head out of your ass.
>>> You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
>>> Wake the fuck up.
>>
>> As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
>> contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on
>> the
>> WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
>> itself is in any way official.
>>
>
> Liar.
And yet, that's exactly what you've done.
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
>
>> In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did.
>> What
>> they actually said is accurately described
>> inhttp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
>>
> Sure.
> "Acid rain" in the building?
You're proving your ignorance again. No one said that it rained in
the building, but yet, you've come to that conclusion from what
you've read. It's no wonder that you're so confused.
>> Of even more significance is that you've never explained your
>> point
>> in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
>> fell.
>
> English?
Yet another explanation of how you've gone so far off track.
> Testimonial Evidence for Explosives
Explosives melt steel like Swiss cheese? Where is there any
evidence whatsoever that any controlled demolition of any building
has ever resulted in steel melting like Swiss cheese?
> Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been
> used, NIST
> also ignored testimonial evidence.
The fact that they came to a different conclusion that the whack
jobs doesn't mean that they ignored it. It means that they've
ignored you.
AZ Nomad
>And most of all, you've got no credible theory on how all those
>explosives got there. It's take a monumental effort to place all of
>those exactly where they've got to be in order to accomplish that
>demolition, and that's if it was done while the building was being
>erected. To do so after it was built would be virtually impossible,
>and yet, not one person has ever claimed to be part of that effort.
>Not one engineer, not one technician, not one laborer, not one of
>anyone. None.
Chewie is asking you to prove a negative. He expects you to prove that
seventy thousand workers didn't arrive at 12am totally undetected,
remove every single piece of window and wall hardware to expose the beams,
placed the demolition charges, and then restore everything down to the last
ornemental poster without a trace and without anybody noticing the thousands
of workers, all by the time the first person arrived in the morning.
I with they could replace a single fucking ceiling lightbulb at work without
leaving debris on my workdesk. Maybe we should hire some of those CIA spooks
chewie believes did such a wonderfuly unbelievable job. It's like magic!
P. Maffia
explanations to fit their moronic scenarios should be enough for even a boob
like "Knews" to realize how preposterous their beliefs are.
Even his latest, that the building was pre-prepared for demolition when it
was built defies any sense of logic. Any explosive material installed and
left unattended for as long as they would have would have seen some natural
deterioration so that, at least, some major portion of that material would
become unstable enough that it would be impossible to predict just how they
would effect the demolition when they were finally triggered.
That would be even more true in the case of a mini-nuke, which did not exist
at the time the buildings were constructed.
But when someone begins with a conclusion, as does "knews," and tries to
concoct an explanation to support that conclusion one has to expect
preposterous stories that continually change.
"AZ Nomad" <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnhb4k8j.h...@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
knews4...@yahoo.com
> The mere fact hat he and his fellow whack jobs have had to concoct so many
> explanations to fit their moronic scenarios should be enough for even a boob
> like "Knews" to realize how preposterous their beliefs are.
>
> Even his latest, that the building was pre-prepared for demolition when it
> was built defies any sense of logic. Any explosive material installed and
> left unattended for as long as they would have would have seen some natural
> deterioration so that, at least, some major portion of that material would
> become unstable enough that it would be impossible to predict just how they
> would effect the demolition when they were finally triggered.
Proof?
> That would be even more true in the case of a mini-nuke, which did not exist
> at the time the buildings were constructed.
>
And your assumption that it had to be built in is meaningless.
> But when someone begins with a conclusion, as does "knews," and tries to
> concoct an explanation to support that conclusion one has to expect
> preposterous stories that continually change.
>
You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history cause a steel
framed building to collapse, caused three buildings to collapse in one
day?
The NIST report is a FRAUD that ignores evidence and standard crime
scene investigation protocal.
You can name call and smear all you want but the evidence will never
go away.
paulthomascpa
> You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history
> cause a steel framed building to collapse,
Give it up chewy. Never in history has a 747 flew into a building and the
building stood.
There is plenty of proof that fire destroys the structural integrity of
steel and concrete. Add to that the weight of the floors above it and the
weight of the plane itself to deteriorating steel and concrete from the heat
of the fire, and it was bound to come down just like it did. Pancaking.
Look it up.
Michael Moroney
>You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history cause a steel
>framed building to collapse, caused three buildings to collapse in one
>day?
We have several incidents where a large fire burning below a steel-beam
highway bridge has caused it to collapse. Highway bridges are built
more substantially than the floor of an office tower, since they have to
deal with speeding overloaded 18-wheelers, yet they still collapsed.
Firefighters are fearful of a large fire in a building with a steel truss
roof, since it's easy for the trusses to fail and the roof to collapse.
The WTC towers were essentially towers with 110 of those truss "roofs".
BradGuth
> n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
> >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom...
>
> If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> stop their terrorist activities
>
Wishful thinking, and otherwise there's no fat chance of those Zionist
Nazis giving up without a darn good fight to the deaths of most
everyone.
I'm beginning to think they've killed off our newsgroup contributor
Warhol, because it has been 6 days and counting since his last topic/
reply. They'll obviously stop at noting, including the putting of
Christ on a stick if need be, and we know as a matter of public record
that they never police their own kind.
~ BG
Michael Moroney
>Particles of Metal in the Dust: The Deutsche Bank building, which was
>right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust
>produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank's insurance company
>refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not
>resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the
>RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche
>Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this
>signature was Spherical iron . . . particles.
Microscopic iron particles aren't evidence of thermite. Large blobs
of molten iron, maybe, but not microscopic particles.
> The study even showed
>that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal
>building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust -- meaning
>almost 150 times as much as normal. [22]
6% of the huge amount of dust created? Do the math, do you really believe
they somehow smuggled in enough superdupernanothermate to add 6% to the
mass of the resulting dust? (even if superdupernanothermate really did
produce microscopic iron, which is a fantasy)
BradGuth
Anything truth worthy or hosting potential revisions to their kosher
approved and kosher published truth, as such is automatically
antisemitic.
Ask them why WTC7 went down.
~ BG
Daniel
>
> > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used,
>
> Liar.
Wrong. The ONLY people that drag out this "nano thermite" bullshit are
you truthers. NO ONE with any amout of credibility is saying anything
other than what WE ALL WATCHED ON TV.
Daniel
> On Sep 16, 3:32 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 12:58 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 8:48 am, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 15, 2:32 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 14, 10:28 pm, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:> One of the definitions of insanity is that a person keeps doing or saying
> > > > > > the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
>
> > > > > So telling the truth over and over makes me insane?
> > > > > Guilty as charged.
>
> > > > > > Your moronic "myths" about 911 have been destroyed over and over again by
> > > > > > knowledgeable people.
>
> > > > > Liar.
>
> > > > > > Ergo, your coming back for more of an intellectual beating proves that not
> > > > > > only are you the moron, but insane as well.
>
> > > > > You are a liar and are not addressing the facts in the article.
>
> > > > There need to be facts to address first, you stupid shit.
>
> > > "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> > Cite? And please use a credible cite, not one of your truther websites
>
> Why don't you read the article before you open your fat mouth?
Because you don't have anything from a credible source.
Daniel
Try providing a credible cite and we will see.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Smokescreen, literally and factually.
And you are a liar.
ea911truth.org
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://stj911.org/ryan/TruthInCredentials.html
Know
>
> > > Liar.
>
> > Wrong. The ONLY people that drag out this "nano thermite" bullshit are
> > you truthers. NO ONE with any amout of credibility is saying anything
> > other than what WE ALL WATCHED ON TV.
>
> Smokescreen, literally and factually.
> And you are a liar.
Why People Believe in Conspiracies
By Michael Shermer
After a public lecture in 2005, I was buttonholed by a documentary
filmmaker with Michael Moore-ish ambitions of exposing the conspiracy
behind 9/11. “You mean the conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
to attack the United States?” I asked rhetorically, knowing what was
to come.
“That’s what they want you to believe,” he said. “Who is they?” I
queried. “The government,” he whispered, as if “they” might be
listening at that very moment. “But didn’t Osama and some members of
al Qaeda not only say they did it,” I reminded him, “they gloated
about what a glorious triumph it was?”
“Oh, you’re talking about that video of Osama,” he rejoined knowingly.
“That was faked by the CIA and leaked to the American press to mislead
us. There has been a disinformation campaign going on ever since
9/11.”
Conspiracies do happen, of course. Abraham Lincoln was the victim of
an assassination conspiracy, as was Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand,
gunned down by the Serbian secret society called Black Hand. The
attack on Pearl Harbor was a Japanese conspiracy (although some
conspiracists think Franklin Roosevelt was in on it). Watergate was a
conspiracy (that Richard Nixon was in on). How can we tell the
difference between information and disinformation? As Kurt Cobain, the
rocker star of Nirvana, once growled in his grunge lyrics shortly
before his death from a self-inflicted (or was it?) gunshot to the
head, “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.”
But as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once told me (and he should
know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats
are incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut. Complex
conspiracies are difficult to pull off, and so many people want their
quarter hour of fame that even the Men in Black couldn’t squelch the
squealers from spilling the beans. So there’s a good chance that the
more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would
need to be involved, the less likely it is true.
Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous
columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the
tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity
(the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional
agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into
meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional
agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks
and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the
hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we
already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial
cognition.
Examples of these processes can be found in journalist Arthur
Goldwag’s marvelous new book, Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret
Societies (Vintage, 2009), which covers everything from the
Freemasons, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group to black
helicopters and the New World Order. “When something momentous
happens, everything leading up to and away from the event seems
momentous, too. Even the most trivial detail seems to glow with
significance,” Goldwag explains, noting the JFK assassination as a
prime example. “Knowing what we know now ... film footage of Dealey
Plaza from November 22, 1963, seems pregnant with enigmas and ironies—
from the oddly expectant expressions on the faces of the onlookers on
the grassy knoll in the instants before the shots were fired (What
were they thinking?) to the play of shadows in the background (Could
that flash up there on the overpass have been a gun barrel gleaming in
the sun?). Each odd excrescence, every random lump in the visual
texture seems suspicious.” Add to these factors how compellingly a
good narrative story can tie it all together—think of Oliver Stone’s
JFK or Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, both What should we believe?
Transcendentalists tend to believe that everything is interconnected
and that all events happen for a reason. Empiricists tend to think
that randomness and coincidence interact with the causal net of our
world and that belief should depend on evidence for each individual
claim. The problem for skepticism is that transcendentalism is
intuitive; empiricism is not. Or as folk rock group Buffalo
Springfield once intoned: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it
will creep ...
knews4...@yahoo.com
<ecomomy snip>
>Or as folk rock group Buffalo
> Springfield once intoned: Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it
> will creep ...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 15, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -An article in the
journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of
propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little
lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but
politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.
The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that
Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that
Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate
rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged
Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their
emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and
sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their
beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of
the facts of the matter.
<snip>
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
The Terminator
you're definitely a certified conspiracy nut chewie !
knews4...@yahoo.com
And you are a bullshit disinfo agent or just plain blind.
<Replace low life loser snippage>
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:e4ed3121-22cd-4004...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 1:03 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >> Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> >> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> >>> On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
> >>> <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> >>>> Yeah, real fact like.
>
> >>>> Opinions are not fact.
>
> >>> Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
> >>>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20...
> >>> Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
> >>> Get your head out of your ass.
> >>> You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
> >>> Wake the fuck up.
>
> >> As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
> >> contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on
> >> the
> >> WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
> >> itself is in any way official.
>
> > Liar.
>
> And yet, that's exactly what you've done.
>
NIST ignored evidence and didn't follow legal procedure for
investigations.
They came to a conclusion and ignored everything that didn't lead to
the government's prefabricated lie.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20090914&articleId=15201
Who pays you to post your bullshit?
It's funny that on the street NO ONE believes the government story BUT
here in this disinfo infested world of the internet there are
thousands of "nyms" smearing and lying to distract people from getting
answers to legitimate questions about 9-11.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KI11Ak02.html
The rest of the world knows 9-11 was a fraud on the world but you just
eat up the government swill.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > n Aug 20, 1:07 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >http://www.voltairnet.org/article16636.html
> > >http://algxy.com/psych/9-11sceario.htmlhttp://libertycalling.com/cmom...
>
> > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > stop their terrorist activities
>
>
> Wishful thinking, and otherwise there's no fat chance of those Zionist
> Nazis giving up without a darn good fight to the deaths of most
> everyone.
>
> I'm beginning to think they've killed off our newsgroup contributor
> Warhol, because it has been 6 days and counting since his last topic/
> reply. They'll obviously stop at noting, including the putting of
> Christ on a stick if need be, and we know as a matter of public record
> that they never police their own kind.
>
> ~ BG
Well at least one newspaper in Santa Barbara isn't Zionist
controlled.....yet.
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/
Dave Johnson
> On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > stop their terrorist activities
>
>
>
>
>t Zionist
> controlled.....
you're a loony
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
AllYou!
news:7e9a13e2-872a-4bf2...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Sep 17, 8:44 am, "P. Maffia" <pmaf...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>> The mere fact hat he and his fellow whack jobs have had to
>> concoct so many explanations to fit their moronic scenarios
>> should be enough for even a boob like "Knews" to realize how
>> preposterous their beliefs are.
>>
> Meaningless smear.
For someone who constantly calls everyone who disagrees with him a
liar, you're getting off pretty easy.
>> Even his latest, that the building was pre-prepared for
>> demolition when it was built defies any sense of logic. Any
>> explosive material installed and left unattended for as long as
>> they would have would have seen some natural deterioration so
>> that, at least, some major portion of that material would
>> become unstable enough that it would be impossible to predict
>> just how they would effect the demolition when they were
>> finally triggered.
>
> Proof?
Common sense combined with the slightest knowledge of explosives.
You have demonstrated that you have neither.
>> That would be even more true in the case of a mini-nuke, which
>> did not exist at the time the buildings were constructed.
>>
> And your assumption that it had to be built in is meaningless.
>
>> But when someone begins with a conclusion, as does "knews," and
>> tries to concoct an explanation to support that conclusion one
>> has to expect preposterous stories that continually change.
>>
>
> You mean like "office fires" which NEVER in history cause a steel
> framed building to collapse, caused three buildings to collapse
> in one day?
No, they caused two buildings to collapse in one day. But if fires
could not possibly cause steel buildings to collapse, then why does
virtually every building code in the US, and maybe even the world,
require structural steel beams and columns to be wrapped with fire
retardant insulation?
> The NIST report is a FRAUD that ignores evidence and standard
> crime scene investigation protocal.
Proof?
> You can name call and smear all you want but the evidence will
> never go away.
On that, we agree.
AllYou!
news:9cf3fb25-cdbf-44c8...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Sep 17, 4:42 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>> "Acid rain" in the building?
>>
>> You're proving your ignorance again. No one said that it rained
>> in the building, but yet, you've come to that conclusion from
>> what you've read. It's no wonder that you're so confused.
Hmmmmmmmm.
>> Explosives melt steel like Swiss cheese? Where is there any
>> evidence whatsoever that any controlled demolition of any
>> building has ever resulted in steel melting like Swiss cheese?
Hmmmmmmmm.
>>> Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been
>>> used, NIST
>>> also ignored testimonial evidence.
>>
>> The fact that they came to a different conclusion that the whack
>> jobs doesn't mean that they ignored it. It means that they've
>> ignored you.
>
> NIST ignored evidence and didn't follow legal procedure for
> investigations.
> They came to a conclusion and ignored everything that didn't
> lead to
> the government's prefabricated lie.
Proof? I've already read your 'article', and there's no proof in
any of that of what you claim. It's just a bunch of arm waving.
AZ Nomad
>news:7e9a13e2-872a-4bf2...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
>knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> You can name call and smear all you want but the evidence will
>> never go away.
What evidence? All you have is fraud and baseless claims.
AllYou!
news:527358fb-cc3a-4445...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
How is it that not one of the hundreds of people who must have had
to have been involved in the planning, design, and installation of
all of those explosives all over the WTC towers such that they would
fall exactly as they did ever come forward to claim that they were a
part of that effort?
How is it that not one of the rest of the thousands upon thousands
of workers required to build the WTC has ever said that they ever
saw any such explosives?
Why kind of explosives that could 'melt' vertical structural steel
such that it would look like Swiss cheese, and that it would do so
in a manner such that the melting process would be so perfectly
timed so that the buildings would fall as they did?
Is it your contention that the explosives used at the WTC were the
kind that are regularly used in the controlled demolition of steel
buildings, or is it your contention that the explosives used were
the kind that slowly melt steel so that it ends up looking like
Swiss cheese?
Is it your contention that mini-nukes use thermite?
Just asking.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > ~ BG
>
> >t Zionist
> > controlled.....
>
> you're a loony
>
http://www.bunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.ciawikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attackshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-mythshttp://www.bunk911myths.org/
And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail.
NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire.
The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits.
The Terminator
> On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > ~ BG
>
> > >t Zionist
> > > controlled.....
>
> > you're a loony
If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
conspirators would
stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/15881...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/...
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > >t Zionist
> > > > controlled.....
>
> > > you're a loony
>
> If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> conspirators would
> stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
The truth will set you free.
www.ae911truth.org
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11
AllYou!
news:b46f6ea8-cfd1-4dd7...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
and they were also built with fireproofing around all structural
steel elements. Why do you think that is?
The Terminator
> On Sep 18, 10:40 am, The Terminator <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote
>
> > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > > >t Zionist
> > > > > controlled.....
>
> > > > you're a loony
>
> > If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> > conspirators would
> > stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
> The truth will set you free
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels,
aliens and other invisible powers that be
By Michael Shermer
http://www.skeptic.com
Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent
designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents
with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control
our lives. Why?
The answer has two parts, starting with the concept of “patternicity,”
which I defined in my December 2008 column as the human tendency to
find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on
Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages
in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive
patterns
in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry
predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids.
The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in
our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make
two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a
pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is
not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the
rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind
(a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe
that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous
predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error
is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is
no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-
second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would
have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are
real.
But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids
with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware
of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and
others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I
call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is
controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these
intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top
down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together
patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism,
paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and
New Age spiritualisms.
Agenticity carries us far beyond the spirit world. The Intelligent
Designer is said to be an invisible agent who created life from the
top down. Aliens are often portrayed as powerful beings coming down
from on high to warn us of our impending self-destruction. Conspiracy
theories predictably include hidden agents at work behind the scenes,
puppet masters pulling political and economic strings as we dance to
the tune of the Bilderbergers, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers or
the Illuminati. Even the belief that government can impose top-down
measures to rescue the economy is a form of agenticity, with President
Barack Obama being touted as “the one” with almost messianic powers
who will save us.
There is now substantial evidence from cognitive neuroscience that
humans readily find patterns and impart agency to them, well
documented in the new book SuperSense (HarperOne, 2009) by University
of Bristol psychologist Bruce Hood. Examples: children believe that
the sun can think and follows them around; because of such beliefs,
they often add smiley faces on sketched suns. Adults typically refuse
to wear a mass murderer’s sweater, believing that “evil” is a
supernatural force that imparts its negative agency to the wearer
(and, alternatively, that donning Mr. Rogers’s cardigan will make you
a better person). A third of transplant patients believe that the
donor’s personality is transplanted with the organ. Genital-shaped
foods (bananas, oysters) are often believed to enhance sexual potency.
Subjects watching geometric shapes with eye spots interacting on a
computer screen conclude that they represent agents with moral
intentions.
“Many highly educated and intelligent individuals experience a
powerful sense that there are patterns, forces, energies and entities
operating in the world,” Hood explains. “More important, such
experiences are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence,
which is why they are supernatural and unscientific. The inclination
or sense that they may be real is our supersense.”
We are natural-born supernaturalists.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 18, 2:09 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 10:40 am, The Terminator <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote
>
> > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > > > >t Zionist
> > > > > > controlled.....
>
> > > > > you're a loony
>
> > > If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> > > conspirators would
> > > stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
> > The truth will set you free
>
> Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
> A Skeptic's take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels,
> aliens and other invisible powers that be
> By Michael Shermer
> Souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent
> designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents
> with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control
> our lives. Why?
Because the Propaganda Matrix keep telling them fairy tales like the
one about 19 hijackers and "office fires" that make buildings
collapse.
Iarnrod
Those sites have no truth; they present only disproven lies.
Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be
physically impossible.
Curly Surmudgeon
Not only is that an ad homenim but mischaracterization. A difference of
opinion among experts does not grant one group the liberty of sliming the
other. Argue the evidence.
> Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be physically
> impossible.
"Impossible" is impossible.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Would Be Ashamed of Today's Republicans
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knews4...@yahoo.com
Don't expect Lame-Rod to do anything but spew lies and detractions.
All he does is "claim" everything is disproven or impossible except
the government's fairytale.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 18, 12:09 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 10:40 am, The Terminator <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > > > >t Zionist
> > > > > > controlled.....
>
> > > > > you're a loony
>
> > > If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> > > conspirators would
> > > stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
>
> Those sites have no truth; they present only disproven lies.
>
> Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be
> physically impossible.
What is physically impossible is for you to crawl out from out from
under the rock under which you live.
www.ae911truth.org
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
http://stj911.org/ryan/TruthInCredentials.html
http://journalof911studies.com/
But then again you are just part of the propaganda matrix.
Iarnrod
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:27:56 -0700, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 12:09 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Sep 18, 10:40 am, The Terminator <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati
> >> > > > > > > conspirators would stop their terrorist activities
>
> >> > > > > > ~ BG
>
> >> > > > >t Zionist
> >> > > > > controlled.....
>
> >> > > > you're a loony
>
> >> > If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> >> > conspirators would
> >> > stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
> >> The truth will set you
> >> free.www.ae911truth.orghttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/
>
> wtc/how-hot.htmhttp://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?
> TOCPJ/2009/00000002/000...http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11
>
>
>
> > Those sites have no truth; they present only disproven lies.
>
> Not only is that an ad homenim
Umm, it is not in any way an ad hominem. You appear not to know what
"ad hominem" means.
The sites are filled with claims that have been proven to be lies.
This is the very antithesis of ad hominem.
> but mischaracterization.
I have not mischaracterized a single thing.
> A difference of opinion
This is not a difference of opinion. It is fact.
> among experts does not grant one group the liberty of sliming the
> other. Argue the evidence.
The evidence already has been argued, but those sites still maintain
disproven lies.
> > Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be physically
> > impossible.
>
> "Impossible" is impossible.
Nope. There is no such thing as silent and invisible explosives. There
were no CD explosives used in the tower collapses; this is plain
observable fact. There is no way around this.
Iarnrod
Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is
proven false. That's just the way it is.
> All he does is "claim" everything is disproven or impossible except
> the government's fairytale.
Nope. I rely on facts, physics, videos, evidence, science, witnesses,
et al. ALL OF IT is fully consistent in every way with the official
findings. Not one single thing is contradicted or even
contraindicated. OTOH, all of this mpuntian of evidence fully
DISPROVES the klaims of the kookers. Simply, the things they claim
cannot possibly be true.
There's nothing I can do about that. I am stuck with that which is
true.
Iarnrod
> On Sep 18, 8:27 pm, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 12:09 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 18, 10:40 am, The Terminator <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 18, 11:40 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > > > > >t Zionist
> > > > > > > controlled.....
>
> > > > > > you're a loony
>
> > > > If only the space aliens from Andromeda and the Jewish Illuminati
> > > > conspirators would
> > > > stop their terrorist activities we would all be much safer
>
> > > The truth will set you free.www.ae911truth.orghttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/h...
>
> > Those sites have no truth; they present only disproven lies.
>
> The only lies here come from you.
You've yet to come up with one, dearie.
> > Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be
> > physically impossible.
>
> What is physically impossible is for you to crawl out from out from
> under the rock under which you live.
I have proven your claims wrong and all you can do is lob insults.
Typical.
> But then again you are just part of the propaganda matrix.
BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAA!!!! That's the last resort of the intellectually
bankrupt... everyone is paid to be against you.
Curly Surmudgeon
Oh? "Description and examples of Ad Hominem fallacy. ... An Ad Hominem
is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is
rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves
two steps."
That is precisely what you are doing stalking your opponent blasting and
ridiculing him rather than confronting his evidence.
> The sites are filled with claims that have been proven to be lies. This
> is the very antithesis of ad hominem.
>
>> but mischaracterization.
>
> I have not mischaracterized a single thing.
Yes, you have. Repeatedly, by denigrating experts and professionals with
viewpoints different than yours. While I do not necessary agree with
none4youwhatever your stalking is such a turn-off that I tend to give
more credence to his position based solely upon your emotional outbursts.
>> A difference of opinion
>
> This is not a difference of opinion. It is fact.
Nope, it is your unobjective opinion and not "fact."
>> among experts does not grant one group the liberty of sliming the
>> other. Argue the evidence.
>
> The evidence already has been argued, but those sites still maintain
> disproven lies.
Apparently not argued convincingly on your side for there are many who
disagree with your rabid attacks on opposing viewpoints.
>> > Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be
>> > physically impossible.
>>
>> "Impossible" is impossible.
>
> Nope. There is no such thing as silent and invisible explosives. There
> were no CD explosives used in the tower collapses; this is plain
> observable fact. There is no way around this.
You have no "facts". You have opinion.
Your continues use of superlatives and rabid dismissal without evidence
argues against your opinion.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is
> proven false. That's just the way it is.
It is precisely that attitude and response that submarines any argument
you might make. Not that you've made one in this thread. So far all
you've offered is contradictions.
AllYou!
news:4112cdd0-d994-404b...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
If 'office fires' are not a threat to structural steel buildings,
why does every major building code in the US and the world require
fireproofing of all structural members in steel framed buildings?
How is it that not one of the hundreds of people who must have had
to have been involved in the planning, design, and installation of
all of those explosives all over the WTC towers such that they would
fall exactly as they did not ever come forward to claim that they
were a part of that effort?
How is it that not one of the rest of the thousands upon thousands
of workers required to build the WTC has ever said that they ever
saw any such explosives?
Is it your contention that the explosives used at the WTC were the
kind that are regularly used in the controlled demolition of steel
buildings, or is it your contention that the explosives used were
the kind that slowly melt steel so that it ends up looking like
Swiss cheese?
What kind of explosives were used that could 'melt' vertical
structural steel such that it would look like Swiss cheese, and that
it would do so in a manner such that the melting process would be so
perfectly timed so that the buildings would fall as they did?
Is it your contention that mini-nukes use thermite?
Just asking.
Daniel
> On Sep 17, 11:50 am, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 16, 7:55 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 16, 3:33 pm, Daniel <sabot12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Sep 16, 1:03 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Innews:604e4332-cf44-4c3d...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
> > > > > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 16, 10:54 am, "paulthomascpa"
> > > > > > > <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > > > > > >>> "Steel melted like Swiss cheese."
>
> > > > > > >> Yeah, real fact like.
>
> > > > > > >> Opinions are not fact.
>
> > > > > > > Why don't you read the article to see what NIST and FEMA said?
> > > > > > >http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20...
> > > > > > > Why do they whitewash their own evidence?
> > > > > > > Get your head out of your ass.
> > > > > > > You "leaders" are crooks and terrorists.
> > > > > > > Wake the fuck up.
>
> > > > > > As usual, one of your kind takes one, small snippet of what's
> > > > > > contained in an offical report, publishes it in an article on the
> > > > > > WEB, and then the rest of you point to it as though the article
> > > > > > itself is in any way official.
>
>
> > > > > > In short, NIST and FEMA did not say what you imply they did. What
> > > > > > they actually said is accurately described inhttp://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
>
> > > > > Sure.
>
> > > > > > in how melting steel is the real explanation for why the towers
> > > > > > fell.
>
> > > > > English?
>
>
> > > > > Besides ignoring physical evidence that explosives had been used,
>
>
> > > > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used,
>
> > > Liar.
>
> > Wrong. The ONLY people that drag out this "nano thermite" bullshit are
> > you truthers. NO ONE with any amout of credibility is saying anything
> > other than what WE ALL WATCHED ON TV.
>
> Smokescreen, literally and factually.
> And you are a liar.
Try some credible sites please.
Daniel
> On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > ~ BG
>
> > >t Zionist
> > > controlled.....
>
> > you're a loony
>
> >http://www.911truth.com/
>
>
> And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail.
> NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire.
> The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits.
Cite? And please use a credible one, and include the design specs.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 18, 12:40 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 18, 3:31 am, Dave Johnson <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 17, 10:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 17, 10:56 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 20, 2:47 pm, "Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > If only George Bush Jr. and his Jewish Illuminati conspirators would
> > > > > > stop their terrorist activities
>
> > > > > ~ BG
>
> > > >t Zionist
> > > > controlled.....
>
> > > you're a loony
>
> > >http://www.911truth.com/
>
>
> > And you are a blind fool to believe the government's fairy tail.
> > NO BUILDING IN HISTORY ever collapsed from fire.
> > The WTC buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE jet hits.
>
> Cite? And please use a credible one, and include the design specs.
Listen to the designer.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/
But then he's not credible is he?
AllYou!
news:13d51727-f96e-48bb...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> Listen to the designer.
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/
> But then he's not credible is he?
The WTC didn't fall from the 'hit' (i.e., impact) from the planes,
which is what the designer is talking about. The WTC fell due to
the effects of the fire which then ensued.
Don't you realize that you continue to prove that your claims have
no credibility every time you respond with nonsense like you have
above?
And if fire can't cause buildings to fail, then why is it that all
major building codes in the world require all structural steel
elements to be covered with fireproof insulation?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:13d51727-f96e-48bb...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> > Listen to the designer.
> >http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/
> > But then he's not credible is he?
>
> The WTC didn't fall from the 'hit' (i.e., impact) from the planes,
> which is what the designer is talking about. The WTC fell due to
> the effects of the fire which then ensued.
>
> Don't you realize that you continue to prove that your claims have
> no credibility every time you respond with nonsense like you have
> above?
>
> And if fire can't cause buildings to fail, then why is it that all
> major building codes in the world require all structural steel
> elements to be covered with fireproof insulation?
Read, learn, discern.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
The Terminator
> On Sep 19, 10:42 am, "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Innews:13d51727-f96e-48bb...@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
> > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
>
> > Don't you realize that you continue to prove that your claims have
> > no credibility every time you respond with nonsense like you have
> > above?
>
> > And if fire can't cause buildings to fail, then why is it that all
> > major building codes in the world require all structural steel
> > elements to be covered with fireproof insulation?
>
> Read, learn, discern.
I don't know if you're the nuttiest person on the internet knews but
thanks for the wacky conspiracy entertainment !
knews4...@yahoo.com
Smears, name calling, and snippage lose.
Iarnrod
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:24:47 -0700,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 9:43 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
Yes. And you confirm that conclusion below.
> "Description and examples of Ad Hominem fallacy. ... An Ad Hominem
> is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is
> rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
> person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves
> two steps."
Nothing in that definition describes even remotely anything I have
said. Nothing, not a thing. I pointed out that the claims of the
troofers have all been proven to be lies. That is not ad hominem at
all, not even close. Ad hominem would be if I had said the claims were
not true because those making them are idiots. While that may also be
true, that is in no way the basis for my rebuttal. The rebuttals have
proven scientifically that their claims are false. Q.E.D.
> That is precisely what you are doing stalking your opponent blasting and
> ridiculing him rather than confronting his evidence.
I have done no such thing. And what the fuck is this "stalking" thing?
This is usenet. I see a discussion, want to contribute, and jump in. I
am helping to educate the readers so that they don't swallow the
disproven garbage put out by the troofers. I am no more stalking than
you are.
> > The sites are filled with claims that have been proven to be lies. This
> > is the very antithesis of ad hominem.
>
> >> but mischaracterization.
>
> > I have not mischaracterized a single thing.
>
> Yes, you have.
No I haven't, and it's disingenuous of you to repeat this silly claim
without actually specifying any actual claimed mischaracterization.
> Repeatedly, by denigrating experts and professionals with
> viewpoints different than yours.
So where in that is the "characterization?" Look, you simply aren't
permitted to have a 'different viewpoint" on whether there is such a
thing as a high explosive that makes no noise or is invisible. This is
not open to debate. If an explosive goes off, it necessarily must make
noise and be visible. I don't know why you think that's a matter of
opinion. But it's not.
And pointing out that the claims have been shown to be false is not
denigrating. I'm sorry this might hurt their feelings, but this isn't
public school where we need to give everyone a star on their forehead
for effort even if they're full of shit. These aren't even experts in
the applicable fields anyway. The findings of real actual experts are
nearly unanimous that the official findings are correct. You cherry
pick a few outliers and pretend their "opinions" overrule the actual
physics of the collapse? I don't think so.
> While I do not necessary agree with
> none4youwhatever your stalking is such a turn-off that I tend to give
> more credence to his position based solely upon your emotional outbursts.
Well, on its face, your statement is utter nonsense. You give credence
to an obviously nonsensical claim because someone repeatedly shows it
to be incorrect? Wow, that's really crazy.
Once again, Curly, participating in usenet discussions is not
stalking. What makes *my* replies stalking and yours not? Give me a
break. I have posted for YEARS on 9/11, it's one of my special areas
of interest; I see discussions on it and I join in. Look, I don't need
a special engraved invitation from you or anyone else.
"Stalking?" Wow, talk about your mischaracterizations!
> >> A difference of opinion
>
> > This is not a difference of opinion. It is fact.
>
> Nope, it is your unobjective opinion and not "fact."
Nope, wrong. It is a plain incontrovertible fact. That there are
nutters who disagree with facts does not reduce them to opinions. It
just makes them wrong. There simply is no such physical thing as high
explosives going off without noise or visibility. That is a FACT.
> >> among experts does not grant one group the liberty of sliming the
> >> other. Argue the evidence.
>
> > The evidence already has been argued, but those sites still maintain
> > disproven lies.
>
> Apparently not argued convincingly on your side...
Well, yes it is. Sorry but you're wrong. Facts are facts. People who
disagree with facts are not merely engaged in a difference of opinion;
they are wrong.
> for there are many who
> disagree with your rabid attacks on opposing viewpoints.
This is not a difference of viewpoints.
If I said to you the US dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and you
said no it didn't, it was an inside job done by Hirohito using
thermite, this doesn't render the historical facts to be mere
opinions, and we don't have to give your "opinion" credence at all.
The fact that there are people who reject plain proven facts and
embrace physically impossible claims is not my problem and it does not
render science invalid.
> >> > Controlled demolition of the WTC towers has been proven to be
> >> > physically impossible.
>
> >> "Impossible" is impossible.
>
> > Nope. There is no such thing as silent and invisible explosives. There
> > were no CD explosives used in the tower collapses; this is plain
> > observable fact. There is no way around this.
>
> You have no "facts".
Yes, actually I do.
> You have opinion.
I have those too, but on this I have facts on my side.
> Your continues use of superlatives and rabid dismissal without evidence
> argues against your opinion.
I have all the evidence, troofers have none, not one bit. They have
lies. Take for example the claim of molten steel, which they keep
trumpeting despite the fact that there was none at all. They point to
the famous "meteorite," pretending that's a cooled hunk of molten
steel when it's a compressed chunk of debris that still actually has
office paper **plainly visible** within it! It's just plain delusional
to continue maintaining that it's a cooled hunk of molten steel in the
face of proof otherwise.
Iarnrod
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:09 -0700,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is
> > proven false. That's just the way it is.
>
> It is precisely that attitude and response that submarines any argument
> you might make.
How so? When someone says something that's been proven right, and
points that out, you somehow think that undermines the truth of it?
That begs for an explanation, and make it a good one!
Iarnrod
> But then he's not credible is he?
How does the fact that he was proven wrong by events support you?
Turns out he was horribly wrong.
By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757 and
767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument approach
to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting the building,
not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph.
BIG difference.
AllYou!
news:e818a3d2-932f-488a...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
As usual, your posted links don't even come close to answering the
question asked.
Curly Surmudgeon
Then point out what you believe is "proven right" and cease with the ad
hominems. Throwing insults is counter productive.
Iarnrod
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:24:15 -0700, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 10:44 pm, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 21:27:09 -0700,Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Sorry, KKKook, but everything I claim is proven true. What you say is
> >> > proven false. That's just the way it is.
>
> >> It is precisely that attitude and response that submarines any argument
> >> you might make.
>
> > How so? When someone says something that's been proven right, and points
> > that out, you somehow think that undermines the truth of it? That begs
> > for an explanation, and make it a good one!
>
> Then point out what you believe is "proven right"
The official findings.
> and cease with the ad hominems.
Cease with your LYING.. I have NEVER used an ad hominem argument. You
are lying by stating such a claim.
> Throwing insults is counter productive.
No it isn't. It is sweet gloating after being proven correct,
knews4...@yahoo.com
Doesn't matter.
"Multiple jet hits."
Those building did no crumble to dust in perfect symmetry from fuel
fires or even totally sheared core columns.
WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint without help from more
than "office fires."
THREE steel structures do not collapse into dust and send "body
fragments" and tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from "office
fires."
www.ae911thruth.org
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
http://journalof911studies.com
Iarnrod
Ummm, of course it matters. You have heard of this thing we call
"physics?"
> "Multiple jet hits."
Low speed low fuel approaches to LGA in fog.
In addition, the fact is the designer was wrong, now isn't it!
> Those building did no crumble to dust in perfect symmetry from fuel
> fires....
Well, you're right about that... the buildings did not "crumble to
dust in perfect symmetry" at all. Straw man.
> or even totally sheared core columns.
The collapsed due to imbalanced static loads that, when steel supports
were weakened by fire and pulled inward on the perimeter columns,
shifted the massive weights above into dynamic loads that, of course,
could only crush everything beneath them. Simple.
> WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint without help from more
> than "office fires."
WTC did not collapse into a perfect footprint at all. Another straw
man.
Doesn't the irrefutable FACT that there were no explosives give you
any pause in your physically impossible theory?
> THREE steel structures do not collapse into dust and send "body
> fragments" and tons of steel beams hundreds of feet from "office
> fires."www.ae911thruth.orghttp://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htmhttp://journalof911studies.com
None of which, of course, happened. "Dust" does not include multi-ton
chunks of building debris, dearie.
Learn what you're talking about before taking on your betters. There
is **nothing** in the official findings that is not fully backed by
the evidence. There is **nothing** in your kkkooker klaims that is
backed even one bit by the evidence.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> None of which, of course, happened. "Dust" does not include multi-ton
> chunks of building debris, dearie.
>
> Learn what you're talking about before taking on your betters. There
> is **nothing** in the official findings that is not fully backed by
> the evidence. There is **nothing** in your kkkooker klaims that is
> backed even one bit by the evidence.
Buildings don't collapse from "office fires."
In no model presented are the tower's cores compromised by the jet
hits.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
WTC 7 fires were hardly enough.
Show these guys they are wrong.
Make them retract.
80 perimeter columns all collapsed at near fee fall speed.
Never happened without help.
Iarnrod
Sure they do. What makes you think they don't? Are you on drugs? What
is so special about "office fires" that no building could possibly
collapse from them? Do you think merely saying it makes it so?
In this case, we have the raging infernos on top of the massive
structural damage and the massive 20- to 30-story office buildsings
presenting massive static loading above the weakening columns abnd
floor struts. Why would you wonder for a moment whether this is the
cause of the collapse, other than your reluctance to accept truth that
contradicts your preconceived political biases?
> In no model presented are the tower's cores compromised by the jet
> hits.http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Sure they are. NIST modeled it.
> WTC 7 fires were hardly enough.
Yes they were.
> Show these guys they are wrong.
The events of 9/11 prove they are wrong, dearie.
> Make them retract.
I don't give a shit if they and you want to be lying KKKooks.
> 80 perimeter columns all collapsed at near fee fall speed.
Lie disproven by all video.
> Never happened without help.
Yup, "help" in the form of 500+ mph fully laden jetliners smashing
into them and raging infernos compromising the floor struts, pulling
the perimeter columns inward and causing the movement of the upper
block of the buildings, causing unstable dynamic load and, as
observed, collapse. Simple.
knews4...@yahoo.com
The only thing "raging" here is you.
http://rense.com/general87/seven.htm
The Sins Of Seven By Seven
By Karl Schwarz
9-19-9
Are you aware that the US dollar is trading as of today, September 17,
2009 at 0.6580 against the Euro? If you are American, planning a trip
to the EU, you had better double check your credit card limit because
it will be 35% less than you think it is in the EU. It will actually
be even more severe because Americans cannot run their cards into the
red negative limits in the EU. The card limits stop well short of what
can be done in the US.
<snip some paragraphs>
Our government will do anything, including be terrorists, to control
the assets and resources of other nations. They will kill anyone so
you Little Sheeple can have gasoline and go shop. If one can read that
and not accept what the definition of shallow is, they are hopeless
for that is the bottom line truth about our government.
The excuse for attacking was 9-11, and no, Afghanistan did not attack
the US on 9-11. It was all about a pipeline, domination of energy
supplies and lining the right pockets. That in a nutshell is why 9-11
happened and still unsolved 8 years later. They lacked the excuse to
attack and take over a damned pipeline right-of-way. They could not
get their way so they created the excuse to attack. Now almost eight
years after we commenced the attack on Afghanistan, there is no
"Mission Accomplished".
I predict there will never be a mission accomplished in Afghanistan.
We lied; we killed maybe up to 1 million Afghans. They are not a
forgiving people and their strength grows daily to hand the US its ass
in their nation. No one has ever conquered or subjugated them and the
US will not either.
The EU coordinator in Afghanistan resigned in disgust because every
opportunity for peace and settlement was intentionally upended by the
Bush Administration. Barky Obama, as unqualified as he is to sit as
president, has not only changed nothing, he has escalated it.
<snip>
Read the rest.
http://rense.com/general87/seven.htm
The 9-11 "Terra attack" is a hoax.
The enemy is within.
Lame-rod is in denial or just plain blind.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Iarnrod
Pfff, complete lack of any ability to rebut devastating proof that you
are a LIAR is duly noted, KKKook.
I am right, you are wrong. Q.E.D.
> The 9-11 "Terra attack" is a hoax.
> The enemy is within.
> Lame-rod is in denial or just plain blind.http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm
Moron, we know how the towers fell, it is not a mystery and it didn't
need any of your cartoon-magic, physics-defying silent and invisible
explosives. The facts are in and you are out.
AllYou!
news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757
>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument
>> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting
>> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners
>> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference.
>
> Doesn't matter.
> "Multiple jet hits."
Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They
fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be
insulated.
AllYou!
news:8b5a1301-cad7-4b17...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> Buildings don't collapse from "office fires."
Then why is the structural steel in office buildings supposed to be
fire insulated?
Al Dykes
In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert
Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no
fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to
standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all
structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in
the minimal fireproofing.
Source: http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]
Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
----
Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer]
original partners who also worked as the project manager at the
[WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces
come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To
defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of
1350 feet is just not possible.
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)
[LIST]
[*][B]Report from Ground Zero[/B] by Dennis Smith
[*][B]Nine Months at Ground Zero[/B] By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray
[*][B]102 Minutes[/B] by Dwyer & Flynn
[*][B]The Naudet film[/B] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_%28film%29[/url])
[*][B]Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11[/B] By David Friend
[*][B]AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive [/B] By Joel Meyerowitz (Coffee-table book with about 300 large-format pictures of Ground Zero.)
[*][B]Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911[/B]
[INDENT] [url]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/[/url]
20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
[url]http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l[/url][/INDENT]
[/LIST][/QUOTE]
----
FM 5-250 Explosives & Demolition
http://www.militarynewbie.com/pubs/FM%205-250%20Explosives%20And%20Demolitions%20Manual.pdf
Example A-5 plate 14 inches wide, 1 inch thick - 3 packages C4
Example A-7 7 blocks of C4 needed to cut a 7 inch dia bar. Page 165
C4 20 cubin inches
Table 6-1 Safe distances for blasting near radio transmitters.
50KW - 3,000 meters.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
knews4...@yahoo.com
> In article <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@posted.choiceonecommunications>,
>
>
>
> AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >In
> >news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>
> Example A-5 plate 14 inches wide, 1 inch thick - 3 packages C4
> Example A-7 7 blocks of C4 needed to cut a 7 inch dia bar. Page 165
>
> C4 20 cubin inches
>
> Table 6-1 Safe distances for blasting near radio transmitters.
> 50KW - 3,000 meters.
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
> - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
So why doesn't NIST release it's WTC "collapse" modeling and data set?
"Global collapse ensued."
End of story.
BS.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
> >In
> >news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>
> >>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757
> >>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument
> >>> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting
> >>> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners
> >>> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference.
>
> >> Doesn't matter.
> >> "Multiple jet hits."
>
> >Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They
> >fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be
> >insulated.
>
> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert
> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no
> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to
> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all
> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in
> the minimal fireproofing.
>
> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground Zero]
>
> Who is Vincent Dunn?
> http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
>
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 8:39=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@posted.choiceonecommunicatio=
>ns>,
>>
>>
>>
>> AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> >In
>> >news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>> >knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>> >>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757
>> >>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument
>> >>> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting
>> >>> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners
>> >>> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference.
>>
>> >> Doesn't matter.
>> >> "Multiple jet hits."
>>
>> >fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be
>> >insulated.
>>
>> =A0 Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no
>> =A0 fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to
>> =A0 standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all
>> =A0 structural steel. =A0Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique i=
>n
>> =A0 the minimal fireproofing.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud=A0[Page 310, Report From Ground Zer=
>o]
>>
>> =A0 Who is Vincent Dunn?
>> =A0http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
>>
>> ----
>>
>> =A0 Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer]
>> =A0 original partners who also worked as the project manager at the
>> =A0 [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces
>> =A0 come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To
>> =A0 defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of
>> =A0 1350 feet is just not possible.
>>
>> =A0 =A0http://snurl.com/j54gc=A0(Report From Ground Zero =A0page 188)
>>
>> [LIST]
>> [*][B]Report from Ground Zero[/B] by Dennis Smith
>chers, & Gray
>> [*][B]102 Minutes[/B] by Dwyer & Flynn
>ilm%29[/url])
>> [*][B]Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11[/B=
>] =A0 By =A0 David Friend
>> [*][B]AFTERMATH: World Trade Center Archive [/B] =A0 By Joel Meyerowitz =
>=A0 (Coffee-table book with about 300 large-format pictures of Ground Zero.=
>) =A0
>> [*][B]Transcripts of NYFD responders at WTC on 911[/B]
>region/[/url]
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A020050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0[url]http://preview.tinyurl.com/7e62l[/url][/INDENT]
>> [/LIST][/QUOTE]
>>
>> ----
>>
>> FM 5-250 Explosives & Demolitionhttp://www.militarynewbie.com/pubs/FM%205=
>-250%20Explosives%20And%20De...
>>
>> =A0 Example A-5 =A0 plate 14 inches wide, 1 inch thick =A0- 3 packages C4
>> =A0 Example A-7 =A07 =A0blocks of C4 needed to cut a 7 inch dia bar. =A0 =
>Page 165
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0C4 20 cubin inches
>>
>> =A0 Table 6-1 Safe distances for blasting near radio transmitters.
>> =A0 50KW - 3,000 meters.
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>> =A0News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advert=
>ising.
>> =A0 =A0 - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
>
>So why doesn't NIST release it's WTC "collapse" modeling and data set?
>"Global collapse ensued."
>End of story.
Start here.
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-sap2000-model
Al Dykes
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 8:39=A0am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@posted.choiceonecommunicatio=
>ns>,
>>
>>
>>
>> AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>> >In
>> >news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>> >knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>
>> >>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757
>> >>> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument
>> >>> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting
>> >>> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners
>> >>> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference.
>>
>> >> Doesn't matter.
>> >> "Multiple jet hits."
>>
>> >fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be
>> >insulated.
>>
>> =A0 Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no
>> =A0 fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to
>> =A0 standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all
>> =A0 structural steel. =A0Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique i=
>n
>> =A0 the minimal fireproofing.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud=A0[Page 310, Report From Ground Zer=
>o]
>>
>> =A0 Who is Vincent Dunn?
>>
>And for whom does he make the most money for "consulting?"
>
Ad hominem much?
knews4...@yahoo.com
> In article <ca141024-af33-42ac-8b10-763aa0791...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
You don't think it's a fair question?
You don't think the government is hiring ANYONE but their old buddy
"contractors" to review their "dirty" work?
Where's an "independent" investigation?
All most "truthers" want is just that.
Besides the traitor's head that is.
AZ Nomad
It is to protect them from CIA operatives sneeking in at 1am with
demolition charges. It's been a real problem.
AllYou!
news:a94ab180-1b7d-457d...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
> On Sep 21, 8:39 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article
>> <psKdnZYItuyXACrXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdn...@posted.choiceonecommunications>,
>> AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net> wrote:
>>> In
>>> news:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
>>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>>> "Multiple jet hits."
>>
>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They
>>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed
>>> to be insulated.
>>
>> In "Report From Ground Zero" (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures
>> expert
>> Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no
>> fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built
>> to
>> standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all
>> structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were
>> unique in
>> the minimal fireproofing.
>>
>> Source:http://snurl.com/j54ud [Page 310, Report From Ground
>> Zero]
>>
>> Who is Vincent Dunn?
>> http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn
> So why doesn't NIST release it's WTC "collapse" modeling and
> data set?
What has that to do with the above?
AllYou!
news:ca141024-af33-42ac...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
Can you dispute the report?
AllYou!
news:c48f2f67-d40c-41f8...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
knews4...@yahoo.com <knews4...@yahoo.com> mused:
It's a moot question. If the report were flawed, you could show
that it is. But if the motives of those issuing reports are in
play, then any reports which you cite are worthless.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Innews:c48f2f67-d40c-41f8...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
It ignores legal procedure for investigating a crime scene.
>But if the motives of those issuing reports are in
> play, then any reports which you cite are worthless.
And so are the NIST and FEMA reports.
Swiss cheese, ignored evidence, wild ass modeling assumptions
They start with the presumption that impact and jet fuel fires caused
the "collapses" and ignore the rest of the evidence including WTC 7.
Why doesn't NIST give us it's data set for modeling the "collapse?"
Because it's BS.
http://physics911.net
www.ae911thruth.org
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=thermite+torch+spectre&sitesearch=#
Daniel
> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> mused:
>
> >> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern 757
> >> and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel instrument
> >> approach to LGA going off course at low approach speed hitting
> >> the building, not fully-laden and fueled heavier jetliners
> >> slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference.
>
> > Doesn't matter.
> > "Multiple jet hits."
>
> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They
> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed to be
> insulated.
REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes crashing
into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse?