Re: 9/11 DEBUNKERZ! ONE LITTLE LINK! yeh, but they jus' don' have the time to check it out. they busy readin' Popular Mechanics.
*us*
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
S'mee
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
>
> Well done.
Yep best disinformation bullshit from a moron who isn't as smart as a
brain dead flatfish. He's almost as stuppid as you are...you
terrorists are all the same so stupid people think it's cruel to kill
you if all you do is talk.
john.whine
Yep best disinformation bullshit from a moron who isn't as smart as a
> brain dead flatfish. He's almost as stuppid as you are...you
> terrorists are all the same so stupid people think it's cruel to kill
> you if all you do is talk. - sch'mee
what kind of flatfish?
there's 500 types, y'know.
*us*
>...bullshit from a moron ...
Nobody asked for you, though.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
john.whine
Search Results
1.
Hollywood 9/11: 9/11 Synchronicities In Films
Apr 25, 2005 ... So if 9/11 synchronicities were overtly and
covertly embedded into Hollywood films as part of some hidden agenda
then what are they ...
www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hollywood_911.htm - Cached -
Similar
2.
YouTube - 911 Hidden in Hollywood - Part 1
This is a film series documenting the many similarities that
Hollywood movies have in common with the attacks on 9/11. Images are
used under the Fair Use ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L1k8AxGe4g&feature=PlayList...
3.
The Matrix & Other 9/11 Hollywood Symbolism
Aug 18, 2008 ... JonesReport.com | Among the interesting
references to 9/11 that were released before 9/11 is a passport for
'Neo' in blockbuster film The ...
www.infowars.com › September 11 - Cached - Similar
*us*
Iarnrod
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
>
> Well done.
>
> Undisputed.
Unsupported, you mean.
*us*
S'mee
TIred of beign pointed out as a liar and unamerican? Or are you jsut a
jealous little punk that I used to beat the shit out of in
highschool...fucking dumb ass dopers like you needed beating. Oh and
you link is a liar as are the otheres...
Matter of fact you are all thieving lying bastards, you wouldn't even
be good fruitcake.
S'mee
and like that fucktard j.whinelikeabitch. You are lying sack of shit
that couldn't find the truth if put a bullet between your eyes...goes
for ANYONE stupid enough to believe for that matter.
*us*
>TIred of beign pointed out as a liar and unamerican... jsut a
>jealous little punk ... I...
>... dumb ass...
>... a liar
You're also subliterate.
*us*
>... lying sack of shit...
It's not about you, though.
Iarnrod
> Undisputed.
Unsupported.
*us*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&feature=related
Notice how this remains undisputed.
*us*
*us*
gained more from the crimes of 9/11
than Bush and Cheney.
Iarnrod
> Undisputed.
Unsupported.
VFW
well, I would add;
the Military/Industrial segment
Blackwater
Halliburton
and the Oil boyz are dividing up Iraq's oil while the tax-payers foot
the "security" bill. i.e. 50,000 troops + guarding it all.
--
Money! What a concept.
*us*
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
The bushkultie can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
*us*
True.
Halliburton's more spoils for Cheney,
and don't forget the Carlyle Group ...
Iarnrod
kooker rage:
> Undisputed.
Unsupported.
*us*
the dust of the World Trade Center has been published..."
Even if the bushkultie could know about such realities,
cowardice would prevent any valid response therefrom.
AzzMazta
NO! Saddam Hussein bombed the world trade center, everyone knows that!
Here's UNDISPUTED PROOF Saddam Hussein did 9/11:
--
Henry Pizzinger Institution
for the Mentally 31337
AzzMazta, Chairman & CEO
www.xcopfly.com
*us*
>On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:30:45 -0400, * US * wrote:
>
>> john whine wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2q2mD2HaKA&feature=related
>>
>> Notice how this remains undisputed.
>
>NO! Saddam Hussein bombed the world trade center, everyone knows that!
>
>Here's UNDISPUTED PROOF Saddam Hussein did 9/11:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/34r9gqh
Indeed ...
Iarnrod
kooker rage:
> Undisputed.
Unsupported.
*us*
Iarnrod
rage:
> Undisputed.
Unsupported.
> I am a bushkultie who can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
I know. You've already demonstrated your insanity quite clearly, Bush-
worshiping counter-disinfo shill.
*us*
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
The bushkultie can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> On Aug 18, 3:22 am, * US * wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
>
> > Well done.
>
> brain dead flatfish. He's almost as stupid as you are...you
> terrorists are all the same so stupid people think it's cruel to kill
> you if all you do is talk.
Well said. I agree completely.
Iarnrod
> I am a bushkultie who is ignorant by necessity.
We know, and your counter-disinfo shilling for your hero Bush is
transparent.
> I am a bushkultie who doesn't even know what nano-thermite is.
I'll bet you thought it was actually possible for your mythical "nano-
thermite" to be used at the WTC when in fact that's been proven to be
a physical impossibility! <tee hee>
> "A peer-reviewed scientific paper on the discovery of nano-thermite in
> the dust of the World Trade Center has been published..."
Which of course is a complete lie; no such thing was found at all and
no paper on it was "peer reviewed."
> Even if I as a bushkultie could know about such realities,
> cowardice would prevent me from any valid response therefrom.
We know you are a coward; that's why you take Bush's money to pose as
a loon and discredit actual reality-based opposition to his criminal
regime.
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), * Hates US * flailed in impotent rightarded kooker
*us*
and empty, baseless assertions of falsehoods.
The bushkultie is ignorant by necessity.
The bushkultie doesn't even know what nano-thermite is.
"A peer-reviewed scientific paper on the discovery of nano-thermite in
the dust of the World Trade Center has been published..."
Even if the bushkultie could know about such realities,
cowardice would prevent any valid response therefrom.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
The bushkultie can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
*us*
*us*
100 respected professors who seriously question the 9/11 official story"
*us*
><shit@shit.> wrote in message news:4c72a51d....@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> ... the Sept. 11
>> attacks in Shanksville, Pa., where United flight 93 went down after
>> the crew and passengers fought back against terrorists.
>
>So we are told. Do you STILL believe the mass-murdering fascists and their
>controlled media lackeys?
>
>
>SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
>GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
>EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
>
>On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
>(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
>the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
>the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
>straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
>touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
>minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
>damaged remained standing.
>
>In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
>former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
>"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
>2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
>goes beyond the pale."
>
>We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
>that's "beyond the pale"!
>
>Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
>phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
>emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
>objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
>assertions?
>
>The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
>that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
>a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
>and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
>heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
>significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
>repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
>else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
>According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
>quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
>tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
>repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
>sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
>
>There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
>facts:
>
>* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
>columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
>
>* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
>alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
>
>Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
>check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
>even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
>pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
>unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
>reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
>such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
>American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
>
>How Gravity Acts:
>
>Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
>noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
>observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
>at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
>magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
>become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
>certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
>
>Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
>ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
>same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
>fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
>
>So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
>anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
>greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
>falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
>accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
>for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
>objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
>
>So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
>per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
>falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
>64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
>on.
>
>Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
>at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
>ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
>16 feet.
>
>Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
>harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
>high-school physics book:
>
>* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
>
>And
>
>* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
>x G x T x T)
>
>So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
>
>Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
>
>So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
>and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
>
>Checking Our Work:
>
>We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
>conservation of energy.
>
>We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
>form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
>a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
>gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
>heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
>bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
>into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
>[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
>shatter or even pulverize concrete.
>
>In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
>concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
>potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
>up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
>holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
>gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
>converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
>
>So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
>
>The equation for potential energy is:
>
>* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)
>
>The equation for kinetic energy is:
>
>* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
>
>So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
>mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
>momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
>
>The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
>= 4608
>
>The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
>x 9216 = 4608
>
>So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
>that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
>simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
>analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
>Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
>
>One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
>
>The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
>perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
>may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
>of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
>a solid metal ball.
>
>That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
>gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
>for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
>energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
>32 ft/sec/sec.
>
>In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
>falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
>energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
>its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
>second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
>overcoming frictional resistance.
>
>This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
>predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
>limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
>propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
>that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
>increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
>incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
>creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
>terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
>they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
>Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
>attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
>
>A Quick Recap:
>
>Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
>physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
>resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
>without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
>it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
>fall a given distance.
>
>Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
>
>The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
>using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
>free-fall from the towers' height.
>
>Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
>
>With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
>
>2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
>
>Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
>
>Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
>
>Time = 9.2
>
>So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
>ground from the height of the WTC towers.
>
>Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
>free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
>200 mph.
>
>But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
>
>Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
>imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
>arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
>objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
>example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
>mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
>
>Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
>than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
>ground.
>
>Observations from 9/11:
>
>On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
>"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
>seconds. Here is the exact quote:
>
>"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
>government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
>not lie about this.
>
>But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
>seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
>
>This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
>air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
>undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
>times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
>core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
>despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
>
>Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
>the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
>Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
>floors less than would, say, a parachute?
>
>It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
>you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
>minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
>10 seconds!
>
>What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
>have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
>rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
>physically impossible!
>
>Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
>high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
>glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
>Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
>energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
>of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
>sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
>to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
>expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
>eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
>The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
>done all these things at once.
>
>Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
>DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
>
>Conclusions:
>
>In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
>duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
>following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
>
>* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
>the collapse.
>
>* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
>of energy.
>
>* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
>
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
>gravity.
>
>* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
>
>None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
>be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
>the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
>of 9/11.
>
>The Bottom Line:
>
>The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
>conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
>FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
>collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
>explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
>
>It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
>destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
>free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
>collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
>The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
>towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
>came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
>
>So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
>story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
>premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
>decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
>presumptions, is also flawed.
>
>The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
>also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
>similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
>made no attempt to explain it.
>
>Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
>miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
>basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
>
>---------------------------------
>FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
>
>http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
>
Thanks for posting that.
*us*
>... the Saudis who pulled this shit off...
Cheney's a Saudi, now, somehow?
"Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
*us*
*us*
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:32:58 -0400, * US * wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:16:32 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>
>>>... do not provide evidence...
>>
>>Tell us that one about yellowcake from Niger,
>>again, while you're at it.
>>
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:48:39 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>
>>>...have provided no
>>>evidence ...
>>
>>Tell us that one about how no one had any
>>warning of any attacks.
>>
>>9/11 was an inside job.
>
> Well... as things stand now, it was either an inside job
>or, American and United flight crews assisted with the
>suicide missions, by departing their flight plans early,
>before the skyjackers could get into the cockpits, so that
>the aircraft would not arrive late at their destinations.
>
>If you don't believe it was an inside job, then you have to
>believe that the American flight crews were suicidal in the
>name of Islamic beliefs. I know, not very convincing
>affairs, but hey, I didn't write the script, and from the
>looks of it, neither could OBL.
Indeed.
*us*
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/9-11BasicQuestions.html
Iarnrod
> I am a bushkultie who is ignorant by necessity.
We know, and your counter-disinfo shilling for your hero Bush is
transparent.
> I am a bushkultie who doesn't even know what nano-thermite is.
I'll bet you thought it was actually possible for your mythical "nano-
thermite" to be used at the WTC when in fact that's been proven to be
a physical impossibility! <tee hee>
> "A peer-reviewed scientific paper on the discovery of nano-thermite in
> the dust of the World Trade Center has been published..."
Which of course is a complete lie; no such thing was found at all and
*us*
>... about "controlled demolition" ...
Experts on controlled demolition point out that
that is what happened.
http://www.stoplying.ca/articles/sept06/expertsdemolition.htm
*us*
>Questions remain - about Flight 93
>It has been reported and apparently accepted that the plane was headed
>for Washington, DC......Or ( maybe ) Three Mile Island?
>
>Question: Where did this information, about the destination, come
>from?
>
>Questions about Flight 93
>
>It has been reported and apparently accepted that the plane was headed
>for Washington, DC.. Question: Where did this information, about the
>destination, come from? Was the flight really headed for DC? Is there
>positive proof that it was heading for Washington ? NO!
>
>Or ( maybe ) Three Mile Island, a more dangerous target ?
>
>At 9:35, on Sept.11, air traffic controllers on the frequency between
>Flight 93 and the control center in Cleveland heard screams and "Bomb
>on board." Then, a voice in thickly accented English said, "This is
>your captain. There is a bomb aboard. We are returning to the
>airport." Then Cleveland radar showed the plane turning sharply south.
>A short time later, Flight 93 crashed in a field outside Pittsburgh.
>
>We now know that, in the back of the plane, five men, apparently led
>by Todd Beamer were planning on rushing the hijackers. Beamer, using a
>cell phone, told a GTE operator, "I know I'm not going to get out of
>this." He then, according to the operator, asked her to say the Lord's
>Prayer with him. There was a struggle , some screaming, then silence.
>
>It has been reported and apparently accepted that the plane was headed
>for Washington, DC.. Question: Where did this information, about the
>destination, come from? Can this be verified? The thought that the
>plane was headed for the White House and the President makes the
>scenario more dramatic historically, but if this cannot be proven,
>there is no reason to deny the thought that the missle could have been
>headed for Three Mile Island.
>
>The plane had not only turned south from Cleveland. Immediately, the
>plane was lowered and the pilot began to follow the Ohio Turnpike
>until it connected with the east-west U.S. route 70-76 (Pa. Turnpike)
>which passes through Harrisburg on its way to Philadelphia. Following
>the turnpike and nearing Harrisburg, the pilot would have seen the
>atomic towers and the atomic plant on the island in the Susquehanna
>River ( about 10 miles south of the Pennsylvania capital).
>
>Following the roadway would seem reasonable since the hijacker pilot
>may not have had the navigation skills to find his way to Washington,
>and he was using the old fashioned landmark navigation to get to Three
>Mile Island.
>
>We can all thank God for Todd Beamer and the others who bravely rushed
>the hijackers. If the plane had completed the journey to Harrisburg
>and Three Mile Island, we would have had problems beyond imagination.
>Despite claims made by defenders of atomic power plants, the aging
>nuclear power station would never have survived the impact of Flight
>93 and its own power plant of jet fuel.
>
>Can ANYONE prove the plane was on its way to the Capital - or WORSE
>----- To Three Mile Island ? And was shot down?
>
>Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down."
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0
>
>Raymond
*us*
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Notice how the bushworshipper avoids all this with mere fallacy
and empty, baseless assertions of falsehoods.
The bushkultie is ignorant by necessity.
The bushkultie doesn't even know what nano-thermite is.
"A peer-reviewed scientific paper on the discovery of nano-thermite in
the dust of the World Trade Center has been published..."
Even if the bushkultie could know about such realities,
cowardice would prevent any valid response therefrom.
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
The bushkultie can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
Obwon
That seems about right, this is exactly the kind of plan
that a Dick Cheney would love, all the way down to killing
plenty of our own citizens, to make the event as attrocious
as possible.
Only thing is, I depart when he says that the drills that
day were used to disguise the attacks from Norad. That
would have to be NORAD and the Military. I sincerely doubt
that anyone could confuse NORAD and the Military, so
completely and not leave their fingerprints on the matter.
Another problem is, with real wayward jets, there are
simply too many people who will get involved, because of
the severe danger they represent, flying in one of the most
heavily trafficed corridors on earth, as well as the best
covered/most scanned areas as well. Add in the fact that
we have a nuclear reactor operating up wind of some 20
million people in the "Greater New York Area", which takes
in parts of New Jersey, Lower Westchester, Parts of
Connecticut and all of Long Island.
We have planes taking off from JFK and Newark, less than a
minute apart, heading for all parts of the entire globe,
and afficionados, wannabes, hobbiests, enthusiasts etc.,
operating radio, radar and other "observation" stations
all over the area, you couldn't count the number of
complaints that would come in, from private people and
official sources, were wayward planes detected heading for
the area. As we learned from flight 800, many of these
monitoring stations record what they observe, so the FBI or
whomsoever would be responsible for the coverup, would have
some job collecting all of this material... IF, real jets
were flown to the targets.
As we have seen in the aftermath of 9-11, the lack of
debris did not matter, nor did the words of the few
eyewitnesses, whose accounts differ greatly from the
official story. Those accounts managed to get on the air
and memorialized, before anyone could judge their
significanse. Never the less, they didn't matter once the
media steamrolled over them with it's own reports and false
videos of what it was they wanted the public to believe.
Usually in America, we rail against people accusing people
of crimes, without any evidence and without any
investigation to find it. But, in this case, we might
just as well have been reliving the witch hunts of Salem.
Point the finger, accuse and convict! No evidence or
investigation needed, and everyone rubber stamps the
conviction, as if they did not know better. Congress is
full of nothing if not lawyers! How much do lawyers think
their professional degrees are worth, if the rule of law is
so easily dispensed with? So then, why no outcry when the
evidence was shipped off so quickly to be destroyed and no
investigations allowed?
With everyone in Congress relying so heavily on the rule of
law, they certainly didn't do very much to support it, when
the chips were really down, eh? So, there's something
greviously wrong and everyone in America either knows or
suspects it. Does anyone really think we're going to get
back the trust we need to repair the damages done to the
nation, if this matter isn't set straight? Sure we can
pretend to ignore it and go along and hope that it doesn't
matter. But that is not the truth, nor will any amount of
hoping, wishing or denial make it true. The world is
watching America with wide open eyes, to see if we wake up
and take back what our good senses tell us we need, or will
we try like the Soviet Union, to conceal our errors until
they overwhelm us?
*us*
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:54:15 -0400, * US * wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>... the Saudis who pulled this shit off...
>>
>>Cheney's a Saudi, now, somehow?
>>
>>"Former Head Of Star Wars Program Says Cheney Main 9/11 Suspect"
>>
>>http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm
>
>That seems about right, this is exactly the kind of plan
>that a Dick Cheney would love, all the way down to killing
>plenty of our own citizens, to make the event as atrocious
>grieviously wrong and everyone in America either knows or
>suspects it. Does anyone really think we're going to get
>back the trust we need to repair the damages done to the
>nation, if this matter isn't set straight? Sure we can
>pretend to ignore it and go along and hope that it doesn't
>matter. But that is not the truth, nor will any amount of
>hoping, wishing or denial make it true. The world is
>watching America with wide open eyes, to see if we wake up
>and take back what our good senses tell us we need, or will
>we try like the Soviet Union, to conceal our errors until
>they overwhelm us?
You're making excellent points.
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
> from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Not the cartoon-magic totally debunked "thermite"
kookery again!!! Well, at least you're into recycling!!
Hint, kooker: Thermite is physically incapable of producing what
happened on 9/11.
If you're gonna keep playing your hero Bush's useless idiot by posing
as a counter-disinfo shill to discredit the reality-based anti-Bush
community, try picking something within the realm of actual
possibility, mmmm-kay, moron?
*us*
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
> from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Not the cartoon-magic totally debunked "thermite"
*us*
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
*us*
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:48:14 -0400, * US * wrote:
>>Even if the bushkultie could know about such realities,
>>cowardice would prevent any valid response therefrom.
>>
>>On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:52:31 -0700 (PDT), "john.whine" <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
>>
>>Well done.
>>
>>Undisputed.
>>
>>The bushkultie can't begin to discuss such things honestly.
>
>If they were capable of being honest and intelligent they would be
>progressives.
Excellent point!
spudnik
been involved, and only by stopping the "scramble
of interceptors," to intercept the huge bombs (or, in the vernacular,
de planes!)
as I recall, most of the "points" that were made
in the *PM* debunking were just fine, but the actual Gold Standard
would be the report from the head of the MIT welding; so,
debun that, if you will.
> Excellent point!
thus:
my Word, I hadn't expected teeheehanson to be a member
of the Second Church of England, secular, but
I'd like to see an extrapolation of the idea of a barycenter,
being all that a black hole is.
anyway, he stole the inverse second-power law (algebraization
of Kepler's orbital constraints) from Hooke.
thus: "hobo aether," I like that;
reminds me of Descartes ad hoc metaphors
to explain refraction (http://wlym.com .-)
thus: you begged the question about trigona, again!... of course,
the desire to make "the" new "math" is a requisite, but
monsieur seems to be totally pre-impressed
with his "new" math, or his imagination.
> I am quite comfortable in my own well established reality
thus: Bill's assertion about layfolk intuition is the best,
I've seen, so far, as *raison d'etre*
for contradictive induction. but,
I didn't get what he said about "nonconstructive"
contradictive induction.
anyway, you'll have to rent your own broom,
going or coming to the Magic Kingdom;
I don't take passengers!
--les ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
*us*
>only Cheeny has been shown to possibly have
>been involved, and only by stopping the "scramble
>of interceptors," to intercept the huge bombs (or, in the vernacular,
>de planes!)
As if the Carlyle Group hasn't raked in the spoils.
Ray Fischer
>"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
"Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
are nearly ubiquitous.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Peter Webb
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4c78af3c$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> <Ame...@USA.now> wrote:
>>"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from
>>the 9/11 World
>
> "Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
> are nearly ubiquitous.
>
Given that they were steel reinforced buildings and aircraft made mostly out
of aluminium crashed into them, the real news story would be if Iron and
Aluminium weren't found in the debris.
I am waiting for the news that precursors to nitrocellulose explosives were
also found. That would mean they found bits of paper in the rubble.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
*us*
>"Thermitic Materials" ...
Check the contents at the link:
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
*us*
wrote:
>... Iron and
>Aluminium ...
Check the contents at the link:
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
john.whine
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4c78af3c$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > <Amer...@USA.now> wrote:
> >>"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from
> >>the 9/11 World
>
> > "Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
> > are nearly ubiquitous.
>
> Given that they were steel reinforced buildings and aircraft made mostly out
> of aluminium crashed into them, the real news story would be if Iron and
> Aluminium weren't found in the debris.
>
> I am waiting for the news that precursors to nitrocellulose explosives were
> also found. That would mean they found bits of paper in the rubble.
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
you know what 'weapons grade' means?
or 'militarised'.?
just out of umm 'curiosity'...
if yer not a Government
Paid Shill yerself...
how would you feel if you found that
such people exist on Usenet?
would you become more sceptical and less of a
Government Groupie?
Ray Fischer
>The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
spudnik
alloys;
all of the Jones et al suppositions about "nanothermite" and
"weapons grade" are just buried in the rubble of the catastrophic
collapse,
and the compounding of the plane with the steel girders
of this "welded building endquote.
I want to be a groupie of the Koch Bros. and the Tea Parties;
seems to be more "largesse" available on that route (although
I am not a "global" warming Denierist, per se .-)
> you know what 'weapons grade' means, or 'militarised?'
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Atomic_Science.pdf
--les ducs d'Halliburton!
http://tarpely.net
spudnik
course,
it really is, so why don't you find some particulars (like,
what did Tricker Dick Cheeny really do,
per Mineta's alleged testimomy ... I mean,
I've seen the video, but was it complete, and
what is Cheeny's side of it?)
thus:
like he said, the bombs -- I mean, the planes were made of aluminum
alloys;
all of the Jones et al suppositions about "nanothermite" and
"weapons grade" are just buried in the rubble of the catastrophic
collapse,
and the massive compounding of the plane with the steel girders
of this "welded building endquote.
I want to be a groupie of the Koch Bros. and the Tea Parties;
seems to be more "largesse" available on that route (although
I am not a "global" warming Denierist, per se .-)
> you know what 'weapons grade' means, or 'militarised?'
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Atomic_Science.pdf
--les ducs d'Halliburton!
http://tarpely.net
--Light, A History!
http://wlym.com
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
> from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Not the cartoon-magic totally debunked "thermite"
*us*
>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
On 28 Aug 2010 06:39:56 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>"Thermitic Materials" ...
Check the contents at the link:
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
*us*
>Carlysle..
It's "Carlyle".
*us*
*us*
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
*us*
>On Aug 28, 2:01 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:4c78af3c$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> > <Amer...@USA.now> wrote:
>> >>"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered ..."
>>
>> > "Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
>> > are nearly ubiquitous.
>>
>> Given that they were steel reinforced buildings and aircraft made mostly out
>> of aluminium crashed into them, the real news story would be if Iron and
>> Aluminium weren't found in the debris.
>>
>> I am waiting for the news that precursors to nitrocellulose explosives were
>> also found. That would mean they found bits of paper in the rubble.
>>
>> > --
>> > Ray Fischer
>> > rfisc...@sonic.net
>
>you know what 'weapons grade' means?
>or 'militarised'.?
>just out of umm 'curiosity'...
>if yer not a Government
>Paid Shill yerself...
>how would you feel if you found that
>such people exist on Usenet?
>would you become more sceptical and less of a
>Government Groupie?
"a highly engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just
this type of application"
Peter Webb
"john.whine" <john....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fa49421-a0d5-4d7b...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 28, 2:01 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4c78af3c$0$1603$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> > <Amer...@USA.now> wrote:
> >>"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from
> >>the 9/11 World
>
> > "Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
> > are nearly ubiquitous.
>
> Given that they were steel reinforced buildings and aircraft made mostly
> out
> of aluminium crashed into them, the real news story would be if Iron and
> Aluminium weren't found in the debris.
>
> I am waiting for the news that precursors to nitrocellulose explosives
> were
> also found. That would mean they found bits of paper in the rubble.
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
> > rfisc...@sonic.net
you know what 'weapons grade' means?
or 'militarised'.?
____________________________
Yes.
just out of umm 'curiosity'...
if yer not a Government
Paid Shill yerself...
how would you feel if you found that
such people exist on Usenet?
would you become more sceptical and less of a
Government Groupie?
____________________________
What people? People paid to make posts in sci.physics supporting the
government on 9/11? They don't exist. You are a paranoid schizophrenic, and
need help.
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
> from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Not the cartoon-magic totally debunked "thermite"
john.whine
> just out of umm 'curiosity'...
> if yer not a Government
> Paid Shill yerself...
> how would you feel if you found that
> such people exist on Usenet?
> would you become more sceptical and less of a
> Government Groupie? - jw
>
> ____________________________
> What people? People paid to make posts in sci.physics supporting the
> government on 9/11? They don't exist. You are a paranoid schizophrenic, and
> need help. - pw
***********************8++++++++++++++++------
yer not in kansas anymore, tutu. - jw
*us*
*us*
not suffering that impairment, do.
Check the contents at the link:
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
> from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
BWAHAHAHAHAA!! Not the cartoon-magic totally debunked "thermite"
john.whine
Iarnrod
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Jones has been proven to be false.
Ray Fischer
>On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
>
>Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
It isn't an oversimplfiication at all. The two ingredients for the
most common form of thermite are powered aluminum and iron oxide.
Calling them "thermitic materials" is obviously just a kook for the
ignorant and gullible conspiracy kooks.
Oh, and if thermite was used to take down the WTC, it would not have
taken an hour. Five minutes, tops, to burn through the support beams.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
>
>Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
It isn't an oversimplfiication at all. The two ingredients for the
*us*
*us*
*us*
On 29 Aug 2010 21:03:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> ... obviously just a kook for the
>ignorant and gullible conspiracy kooks.
You even believe a guy on dialysis in
a cave in Afghanistan was behind 9/11.
On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
On 28 Aug 2010 06:39:56 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
*us*
>... proven to be false.
Tell us that one about how nobody in the
Bush/Cheney occupation had any warning
of any attack in 2001.
*us*
>...it would not have
>taken an hour...
Why would anyone imagine that it did?
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814
On 29 Aug 2010 21:03:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> ... obviously just a kook for the
>ignorant and gullible conspiracy kooks.
You even believe a guy on dialysis in
a cave in Afghanistan was behind 9/11.
On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
On 28 Aug 2010 06:39:56 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
*us*
and even the most desperate bushworshipper has
nothing with which to dispute that fact.
The bushkultie can't understand, but others,
not suffering that impairment, do.
Check the contents at the link:
"The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World
Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic
explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches
previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples..."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
The bushkultie doesn't know what thermite is.
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
Ray Fischer
>>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
>
>Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
The reality of the matter is that you're a kooktard who thinks that
"Thermitic Materials" means something other than powdered aluminum and
Ray Fischer
>Thermite was the only likely cause for the collapses,
If you knew anything at all about thermite then you'd know why that's
a silly statement.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
*us*
Thermite was the only likely cause for the collapses,
*us*
The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story," is a pretty simple
brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity."
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814
On 29 Aug 2010 21:03:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> ... obviously just a kook for the
>ignorant and gullible conspiracy kooks.
You even believe a guy on dialysis in
a cave in Afghanistan was behind 9/11.
On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
On 28 Aug 2010 06:39:56 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
Henry
Nuts jobs like to believe that he's "false", but they never cite any
evidence of it....
Here's some expert analysis of WTC7 that proves it had to
be a demolition. Let us know if you disagree with any of it,
and if so, why exactly.
According to the government's latest revision/lie, WTC7 "collapsed"
due to nothing but minor ordinary office fires. It was too far from
the towers to suffer any significant damage from their demolitions.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html
"Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the
collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting
structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse
of WTC 7."
Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why. The writer proves that gradual weaken due
to heat couldn't possibly have caused WTC7's sudden, free fall,
and symmetric drop, and he uses a clear, logical combination of
evidence, basic physics, and common sense to do it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder of
Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dear Dr. Sunder,
Here are our talking points:
1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:
a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)
Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.
The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.
Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/
--
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org
Iarnrod
Janitor <9-11nutjob...@shit-for-brains.kook> deluded itself:
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 10:50 am, "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
> > Jones has been proven to be false.
>
> Nuts jobs like to believe that he's "false",
Hankie, he's been proven false.You cannot get around this.
> but they never cite any evidence of it....
ALL of the evidence proves it, in addition to the FACT that Jones HAS
NO evidence.
> Here's some expert analysis of WTC7 that proves it had to
> be a demolition.
It has been proven physically impossible for WTC7 to have been
"demolished" by anything other than WTC1 crashing into it, setting off
raging internal fires.
> Let us know if you disagree with any of it,
All of it, of course, since it has been proven false.
Tell us more, Hankie, about your physics-defying cartoon magic "silent
and invisible" explosives! BWAAAHAAAHAAHAHAAA!!
> and if so, why exactly.
Because it is false.
Howzabout YOU tell us ONE THING in it that you "think," is true, and I
will take you out back to my Woodshed of Truth (R) and school you,
fired janitor boy!
Hint: You can't and you won't. You're like * Hates US *, all you can
do is cut and paste and regurgitate what your masters have crammed
down your gullible kooker throat.
Iarnrod
> "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust
Iarnrod
> You even believe a guy on dialysis in
> a cave in Afghanistan was behind 9/11.
Who the heck would THAT be, moe-ron?
Oh wait, are your Bush-Cheeeney paymasters STILL tasking you with
trying to pass off the insane lie that UBL was on dialysis and living
in a cave at the time of 9/11? BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!! * Hates US*, if
you're going to lie, try making it one that's not so easily disproven.
Nothing you have said so far has stood for one second.
Iarnrod
> Thermite was the only likely cause for the collapses,
> and even the most desperate bushworshipper has
> nothing with which to dispute that fact.
BWAAHAHAAAA!!!! Still with the disproven "thermite" claims!! Too
fuckin' funny!!
Hint: Thermite is physically incapable of producing what happened on
9/11.
But do keep up your counter disinfo work for the criminal moron Bush.
*us*
>Iarnrod wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 10:50 am, "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
>
>> Jones has been proven to be false.
>
> Nuts jobs like to believe that he's "false", but they never cite any
>evidence of it...
Exactly. Jones is a real person, and
nobody can dispute what he says.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html
Good compilation.
As if a mere bushkultie could discuss this intelligently ...
*us*
wrote:
>... proven to be false.
Tell us that one about how nobody in the
Bush/Cheney occupation had any warning
of any attack in 2001.
"a quick course"
*us*
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/05/5-photos-911-thermite-deniers-hate.html
Thermite was the only likely cause for the collapses,
and even the most desperate bushworshipper has
nothing with which to dispute that fact.
The bushkultie can't understand, but others,
*us*
>...it would not have
>taken an hour...
Why would anyone imagine that it did?
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814
On 29 Aug 2010 21:03:19 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> ... obviously just a kook for the
>ignorant and gullible conspiracy kooks.
You even believe a guy on dialysis in
a cave in Afghanistan was behind 9/11.
On 28 Aug 2010 19:52:49 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>"Thermitic Materials" ...
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/ab58014fb66d472e?hl=en
Well done.
Undisputed.
The bushkultie has only childish namecalling.
*us*
>... been proven false...
Of course you have.
Meanwhile:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:13:07 -0400, Henry <9-11...@experts.org> wrote:
>Iarnrod wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 10:50 am, "john.whine" <john.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
>
>> Jones has been proven to be false.
>
> Nuts jobs like to believe that he's "false", but they never cite any
>evidence of it....
>
> Here's some expert analysis of WTC7 that proves it had to
>be a demolition. Let us know if you disagree with any of it,
>and if so, why exactly.
>
Henry
> <Ame...@USA.now> wrote:
>>> Most commonly powdered aluminum and rust.
>> Your oversimplification does not address the reality of the matter.
>
> The reality of the matter is that you're a kooktard who thinks that
> "Thermitic Materials" means something other than powdered aluminum and
> rust.
In the case of 9-11-01, it does. Why do you refuse to read, think,
or get informed?
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Does it strike you as unusual that in spite of requests from
hundreds of people, NIST refused to test the evidence for
explosive residue of any kind? WTC7's "collapse" displayed all
the characteristics of a demolition (rapid, total, symmetric)
and none of fire related damage (gradual, partial, localized).
NIST says it didn't test for demolition because the loud
explosion that would have been heard during a conventional
demolition wasn't heard. But NIST knows a *lot* about modern
thermite technology, and they certainly know that nanothermite
has milder blast characteristics.
"Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland
Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of
non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC
has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging
nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other
military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007)."
Does any of this information shake your belief in the Bush regime's
conspiracy theory? Do you think it's all lies, or do you try not
to think about it at all?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?"
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the
steel."
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006
"Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC,
it is strange that NIST has been so blind to any such possibility.
In fact, when reading NIST?s reports on the WTC, and its periodic
responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before.
But the truth is, many of the scientists and organizations involved
in the NIST WTC investigation were not only well aware of
nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology."
"Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite
coatings, should have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.
1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel
nanothermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).
2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST's advisory committee,
and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is
an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the "ignition
of porous energetic materials"(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator
et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous
energetic materials. Additionally, Williams' research partner, Stephen
Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the
focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams' other colleagues at the
University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also
experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al
2007).
3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland
Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of
non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC
has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging
nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other
military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC's subsidiary Applied Ordnance
Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with
lasers (Howard et al 2005). In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was
the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that --
"After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses
produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible
(SAIC 2004)." And the coincidences with this company don't stop
there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism
risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late
1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration,
and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome
Hauer and Steven Hatfill.
4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and experton fuels and materials
who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in
October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director
of DARPA's office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.
Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use
of nanothermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005)."
Henry
> <Ame...@USA.now> wrote:
>> Thermite was the only likely cause for the collapses,
> If you knew anything at all about thermite then you'd know why that's
> a silly statement.
Henry
> <Ame...@USA.now> wrote:
> "Thermitic Materials" are aluminum powder and rust. Substances which
> are nearly ubiquitous.
Henry
> Given that they were steel reinforced buildings and aircraft made mostly
> out of aluminium crashed into them, the real news story would be if Iron
> and Aluminium weren't found in the debris.
No planes hit WTC7.
Here's some expert analysis of WTC7 that proves it had to
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75
Dear Dr. Sunder,
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg
Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm
Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/
Peter Webb
official story?
If so, could you tell us what it is, please?