# Explosives found in World Trade Center dust



## JBeukema (Feb 8, 2011)

> Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite


Common Ground - February 2011


----------



## Trajan (Feb 8, 2011)

Dr. Niels Harrit lectured for 34 years at the University of Copenhagen, and has published more than 60 articles in major science journals. He has delivered 90 lectures on the World Trade Center in Sweden, Norway, England, Holland, the US, Australia and Spain.

Cross-country tour & talks:
Feb 24: Dr. Harrit speaks at UBC, Geography Bldg, Rm 100, 1984 West Mall, 7pm.
Feb. 26: UVic, David Lam Auditiorium (A144), 7pm.
Admission $10 both cities. Tickets in Victoria available from Ivy&#8217;s, Sorenson&#8217;s, Tanner&#8217;s and Cadboro Bay books. He also speaks in Edmonton, Toronto, Hamilton and London.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 8, 2011)

Hasn't this been posted enough in the Conspiracy forum?


----------



## Mini 14 (Feb 8, 2011)




----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 8, 2011)

Did you know that at inspection points around the Country they get false readings of explosives all the time? many things can SEEM to be the dreaded explosives and then upon further investigation turn out to be nothing at all.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2011)

Thermite = aluminum and rust. It can be found nearly everywhere if you want it to be found.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 8, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011



I saw JFK and Tupac at 7-11 yesterday.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 8, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> ...



duuude..if you go back, get tupacs autograph for me?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 8, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> ...



Were they buying Twinkies for Elvis?


----------



## R.C. Christian (Feb 8, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Thermite = aluminum and rust. It can be found nearly everywhere if you want it to be found.



Playing devil's advocate, but if you had even bothered to read you would have noticed that this was "nano-thermite" or that is the allegation anyway. Nano-thermite definitely does not occur naturally sarge. And if it "is" nano-thermite then it was produced in a special process that only the U.S. military industrial complex is privy to which means it can come from only 1 place. 

That said I think the prof is mistaken somehow. I don't think his peer review passes muster.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 8, 2011)

Common ground? OK obama doesn't have a hawaiian long form Birth certificate. Hows that for common ground?


----------



## Intense (Feb 8, 2011)

Moved.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 8, 2011)

Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of active thermetic material that utilized nano technology has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.

Really,  10 tons? Ever seen thermite go off? I doubt there would be any left that hadn't been burned. Let alone 10 tons.

I'm not even 100% convinced there is such a thing as Nano thermite.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Feb 8, 2011)

Sarge, I've made thermite so I know what it is and what it does. I've seen a paper somehwere that proves the existence nano-themite however, I'm not convinced it existed before 9-11 so I have to believe for now that the entire theory is bunk and I'd have to seriously question the Dutch professors reasoning. In any event, if the tech does exist it is hightly secretive.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011



J are you NOW saying you dont accept the fairy tales of the governments anymore,that the planes brought down the towers? sure looks like it.If so,congrats.If you are being serious,i am really surprised with you because this is the first time in all  my years i have ever seen a loyal Bush dupe on the NET,be converted and come over to the side of the truth.I remember when you used to defend the official version to know end.well better late than never to see the light.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 9, 2011)

R.C. Christian said:


> Sarge, I've made thermite so I know what it is and what it does. I've seen a paper somehwere that proves the existence nano-themite however, I'm not convinced it existed before 9-11 so I have to believe for now that the entire theory is bunk and I'd have to seriously question the Dutch professors reasoning. In any event, if the tech does exist it is hightly secretive.



the naive and the uninformed.the entire theory that planes and the fire caused the towers to collapse is whats bunk.obviously you dont know anything about the witnes testimonys either or the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thouands of years. if you believe the governments version,then your saying those laws of physics dont apply anymore.


----------



## candycorn (Feb 9, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Sarge, I've made thermite so I know what it is and what it does. I've seen a paper somehwere that proves the existence nano-themite however, I'm not convinced it existed before 9-11 so I have to believe for now that the entire theory is bunk and I'd have to seriously question the Dutch professors reasoning. In any event, if the tech does exist it is hightly secretive.
> ...



Yeah..take it from the illiterate moron who can't properly spell the word "testimonies"; you're full of it!  LOL


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 9, 2011)

candycorn said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



Now, now, thinking is hard for some people. I understand he actually breaks out in a sweat.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 9, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Sarge, I've made thermite so I know what it is and what it does. I've seen a paper somehwere that proves the existence nano-themite however, I'm not convinced it existed before 9-11 so I have to believe for now that the entire theory is bunk and I'd have to seriously question the Dutch professors reasoning. In any event, if the tech does exist it is hightly secretive.
> ...


Are you in 5th grade? You spell like it, you little worm.


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 9, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Did you know that at inspection points around the Country they get false readings of explosives all the time? many things can SEEM to be the dreaded explosives and then upon further investigation turn out to be nothing at all.



If only the lefties looked as hard in Iraq 


No WMD's..... none whatsoever!

 Whatever!


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 10, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 10, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> ...


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 10, 2011)

Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 10, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?
> 
> Robert


hey no fair
how dare you use science


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 10, 2011)

Indeed. How unfair....haha

Robert


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 11, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 11, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

So many whackos here. Ok, advice well taken. Eventually, I will know who is who and who is a total nut job. Thanks for your input and heads up. Appreciated. This is my 5th day here and am quickly learning. 

Robert


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 11, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...




In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

&#8220;In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.&#8221;

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

&#8220;What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn&#8217;t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building&#8217;s descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.&#8221;

Secondly:

&#8220;The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building&#8230; The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.&#8221;

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 &#8211; Draft for Public Comment,&#8221; Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008.  http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, &#8220;The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST&#8217;s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,&#8221; GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,&#8221; Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] Newton's Laws prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

*cognitive dissonance -  Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. *_


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 11, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...


_




_


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...


_
SEEEE!!! ^^^^
no where does he actually address anything in the post he is responding to, all he does is post the exact same bullshit again_


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

No, Newton's law pertaining does not prove controlled demolition. You are a pathological liar. Here is the facts with physics and an easy differential equation proving you are in total, gross error.

V=volume
C=failure
H=heat
N=answer and sum

V/&#8776;(V´ø/*/><åx&#8721;^H)§x3.88392/¡¥-.23&#8776;&#8747;&#937;/H+=N Collapse time 1.0955, or,  nearly 2 seconds form roof level to hit street level. 

This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume.

Robert


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 11, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


_

It's all he knows._


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 11, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> No, Newton's law pertaining does not prove controlled demolition. You are a pathological liar. Here is the facts with physics and an easy differential equation proving you are in total, gross error.
> 
> V=volume
> C=failure
> ...


yeah, but your just using physics, he uses "newtonian physics" so he must know more than you


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

He must! Wow.......haha

Robert


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011



You're a truther? No wonder you do not understand that eugenics is evil.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Thermite = aluminum and rust. It can be found nearly everywhere if you want it to be found.



Espcially in the ashes of a major office building that had aluminum air ducts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of active thermetic material that utilized nano technology has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.
> 
> Really,  10 tons? Ever seen thermite go off? I doubt there would be any left that hadn't been burned. Let alone 10 tons.
> 
> I'm not even 100% convinced there is such a thing as Nano thermite.



The really weird thing is that until recently there probably wasn't 10 tons of nano thermite available anywhere because it was to hard, and too expensive, to make in bulk.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 11, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of active thermetic material that utilized nano technology has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.
> ...



Explosive Residues
*Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:*

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 11, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

Hey everyone, 

Check out my post above to this effect.  I tried to clarify and did a quick re-visit to the various and numerous vids. of impacts and then checked my math and am baffled how anybody can think other than what we see, as to what happened. Odd, this.

Here is the formula equation for impact transfer of inherent mass for WTC 7 and same for WTC 1 and 2 (fuel load is included in the equation.)

V=volume
C=failure
H=heat
N=answer and sum

V/&#8776;(V´ø/*/><åx&#8721;^H)§x3.88392/¡¥-.23&#8776;&#8747;&#937;/H+=N Collapse time 1.0955, or, nearly 2 seconds form roof level to hit street level. 

This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume. Transfer energy was 440+ tons at 505 mph for both impact vehicles to WTC 1 and 2.

Hope this is again helpful, for those not on drugs, with a HS education, and interested, can formulate a premise and think logically.

Thank you,

Robert


----------



## Terral (Feb 11, 2011)

Hi Robert:



Robert_Stephens said:


> Here is the formula equation for impact transfer of inherent mass for WTC 7 and same for WTC 1 and 2 (fuel load is included in the equation.) ... This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume. Transfer energy was 440+ tons at 505 mph for both impact vehicles to WTC 1 and 2.



This nonsense borders on the most ridiculous excuse for the Official Cover Story LIE these eyes have ever seen. There is no amount of hydrocarbon fuel that is going to melt 2800-degree red-iron structural steel, because kerosene simply does not burn hot enough.

My WTC-7 Topic:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A"]WTC-7 Was Hit By No Jetliner[/ame]

This guy is trying to say this is a video of an overbuilt steel-framed skyscraper burning to the ground. :0) There is no sign of any jetliner or fire anywhere! 






This skyscraper was transformed into this ...






... in 6.6 seconds. Look at the faces of the adjacent buildings to realize WTC-7 imploded into its own footprint by design. WTC-1 collapsed CD-style in 'pancaking' fashion straight down into its own footprint from 350 feet away, but Mr. Robert here will say that implosion somehow caused WTC-7 to fall down the same way. However, in that case, WTC-7 should have caused the collapse of surrounding buildings for his hypothesis to have merit, which DID NOT happen. 

Let Mr. Robert explain how heat energy from any 'fire' was transported to the cooler areas of the steel-frame network FASTER than any single column or beam could reach melting points. No steel-frame skyscraper has burned down in history, except three that were controlled by Larry Silverstein and all three collapsed CD-style on 9/11 during this inside-job attack. 

This Robert guy is a Govt shill cool sent here to push Official Cover Story STUPIDITY, as if 9/11 was planned and carried out by a bunch of these people:






GL,

Terral


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 11, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Robert:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You will always be wrong until you start counting the penthouse as part of the building. 
Why is it truther videos always leave that part of the collapse off?


----------



## Dante (Feb 11, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011





it must be true .. you found it on the internet(s)


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 11, 2011)

Tarral, 

You are pathological liar and and a sociopath.  You can't even formulate a premise, let along complete a coherent sentence. It has to be drugs or tourettes or both.  I've not seen such dementia, publicly.

Robert


----------



## eots (Feb 11, 2011)

*


Robert_Stephens said:



			No, Newton's law pertaining does not prove controlled demolition. You are a pathological liar. Here is the facts with physics and an easy differential equation proving you are in total, gross error.

V=volume
C=failure
H=heat
N=answer and sum

V/&#8776;(V´ø/*/><åx&#8721;^H)§x3.88392/¡¥-.23&#8776;&#8747;&#937;/H+=N Collapse time 1.0955, or,  nearly 2 seconds form roof level to hit street level. 

This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume.

Robert
		
Click to expand...



Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:


"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."  AE911Truth.org


Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,400 Architects and Engineers: 

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates  hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.  We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." Sign the Petition


Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories.  It would have been the tallest building in 33 states.  Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers.  However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."  Watch the collapse video here.  And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.


Bio: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov








Larry L. Erickson, MS, PhD
No photo available


Larry L. Erickson, BS Aeronautical Eng, MS Aeronautical Eng, PhD Eng Mechanics  Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer and Research Scientist.  Conducted research in the fields of structural dynamics, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity and flutter.  Recipient of NASA's Aerodynamics Division Researcher-of-the-Year Award.  33-year NASA career.*  Member, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics.  Instructor, Physics and Aerospace Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo 1998 - present.  Author and co-author of several scientific papers on aerodynamic analysis.  Contributing author to Applied Computational Aerodynamics (1990).
Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

*"Serious technical investigations by experts seem to be lacking from the official explanations."* AE911Truth.org


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 1,400 Architects and Engineers:


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 11, 2011)

eots said:


> *
> 
> 
> Robert_Stephens said:
> ...


Same old copy and paste from eots the idiot. YAWN!!!!!


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 12, 2011)

So many psychopaths, so little time.

Robert


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 12, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> So many psychopaths, so little time.
> 
> Robert


what is your opinion on Dwain Deets?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 12, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > So many psychopaths, so little time.
> ...



An extremely kind and talented man and a very astute asset to the NASA-USAF-EAFB team before he left. Great guy off topic as well. He also is a very astute grapser of orbital dynamics.

NASA - Dryden Flight Research Center - News Room: News Releases: Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director

He left NASA before 911 so I do not know of his whereabouts and activities at current.

Robert


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 12, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...


strange such a man would sign onto this nonsense then


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 12, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



True. And many of us were confused when he began that silliness. He did have a mild aschemic stroke and that may have been cause, perhaps. Still, a very good man and kind as well.

Robert


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 12, 2011)

9/11 Truth: The 9/11 Commission Was Set Up To Fail As Said by Commissioners Themselves.

This is a very brief clip from a question and answer session Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton gave at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on 9/11/2006


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2011)

Maybe if Eots could get 6% of the Architects and Engineers to sign on instead of the 0.01% that they have presently...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 9/11 Truth: The 9/11 Commission Was Set Up To Fail As Said by Commissioners Themselves.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzrv-e37Es8&feature=player_embedded
> This is a very brief clip from a question and answer session Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton gave at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on 9/11/2006



its always hysterical how the disinfo agents Ollie,candycorn,ect ignore this little tidbit. they expose themselves here constantly that they have NO INTEREST in the truth.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 12, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Maybe if Eots could get 6% of the Architects and Engineers to sign on instead of the 0.01% that they have presently...



Gomer will never admit that many of them are not brave enough to put their jobs  on the line like the thousands that have and come out have and say explosives brought the towers down because they will lose contracts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 12, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Feb 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Truth: The 9/11 Commission Was Set Up To Fail As Said by Commissioners Themselves.
> ...



Its always hysterical how the cocksucking twoofers like you cannot point to a single inaccuracy in the report yet always swear it was a failure.  

The truth is there; you're too scared to read it.  Pity.  But there is a certain justice that you're where you are at in the world; in the flyover states that nobody cares about; fits you just right.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 12, 2011)

like i said,the troll can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey he is.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 12, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> the OCTAS can only fling shit in defeat here over this post.notice that Physics?  funny how hypocrite moron in the hat graps at straws saying look at the science in the facts when  he wont do that himself.or listen to witness testimonys.



No, it's funny how when you do watch PE's videos, then ask him a simple question about them, he runs away or changes the subject instead of answering it. But, since you brought it up, I'll try for the 6th time.

*Hey PhysicsExists, why is it in the video you posted of the Geraldo Rivera interview, does Bob McIlvaine dodge and evade when Geraldo asks him if the architects and engineers agree with his theory.*

Now, remember 9IJ, this is a question for PE, not you, so he is required to answer it. Let's see if he can man up to the challenge, or will he just ignore it again.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 12, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the OCTAS can only fling shit in defeat here over this post.notice that Physics?  funny how hypocrite moron in the hat graps at straws saying look at the science in the facts when  he wont do that himself.or listen to witness testimonys.
> ...



SSDD videos? Still? LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 12, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Maybe if Eots could get 6% of the Architects and Engineers to sign on instead of the 0.01% that they have presently...


he might have rdeans support then


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



As officers in the U.S. military, *we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."* Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. *Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty* to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. 

http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 13, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


still didnt answer the question


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > the OCTAS can only fling shit in defeat here over this post.notice that Physics?  funny how hypocrite moron in the hat graps at straws saying look at the science in the facts when  he wont do that himself.or listen to witness testimonys.
> ...



its also funny how you OCTA'S run off with your tails between your legs when I ask you to explain whats wrong with these 65 videos and why they dont prove it was an inside job. not one OCTA from ANY message board has EVER even attempted to debunk ONE of them let alone all 65.thats not the way you debate and win. maybe he will ignore it,but you octas always ignore and dont try to debunk these videos. how ironic,thats what you OCTAS always do is run away or change the subject when asked to address these videos.  rolls on floor laughing. Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library  thats why i dont try and have a serious debate with OCTAS anymore cause you all have no interest in the truth. i have always said i dont expect people to finish watching them all in one weekend,just one or two every other day and comment on them,yet you all never do.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



LOL the dumbass is still answering my posts. Got to love the intelligence level of these fools...


----------



## Toro (Feb 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> its also funny how you OCTA'S run off with your tails between your legs when I ask you to explain whats wrong with these 65 videos and why they dont prove it was an inside job.



rofl!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 13, 2011)

Toro said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > its also funny how you OCTA'S run off with your tails between your legs when I ask you to explain whats wrong with these 65 videos and why they dont prove it was an inside job.
> ...



Most of his videos have been debunked countless times and at least one of the 65 proves that the 911 CR is correct.


----------



## Fizz (Feb 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> thats why i dont try and have a serious debate with OCTAS anymore cause you all have no interest in the truth.



you wouldnt know what the truth is even if it's balls were smacking you in the chin....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 13, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Why bother watching your crap when none of you goofballs will answer questions about them. All you idiots do is post a youtube and say "here is THE TRUTH". When questioned, you just post another one and say "No, here is THE TRUTH". You can't answer simple questions without the same old videos.

And you'll notice that it's been over 24 hours, and The King of all Newtonian Physics still hasn't answered one little question about one short video.

Funny, isn't it?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


i havent even bothered to check his "65 videos" because i have seen so many hundreds of troofer videos and not one of them can stand up to debunking
why would i believe these 65 have anything new that hasnt been seen in the past 10 years?


----------



## candycorn (Feb 14, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



And of course what has never ever been explained is that the 65 videos largely contradict one another. By definition; some of them are lying. 

It is no surprise that the lies are perfectly acceptable in twooferdom; the entire "movement" is based on lies.


----------



## Toro (Feb 14, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I think that's down from the 347 or so youtube videos 9/11 inside nutjob was touting a few years ago.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



as usual you lie agent.we answer questions about them all the time,maybe physics doesn't,but I have  never Eots for one,dodge a question asked of him ,same with many other truthers.

 you agents though just post crap thats been disproven when the answers are given to you like you did with your pathetic  fairy tale NIST report in response to J Beaukema's opening post.Im proud of J,unlike other Bush dupes like Toto for instance,he isnt arrogant and can  admit it when he is proven wrong and not afraid of the truth.

 NIST kept changing their story when their official story was shreaded to pieces by independent investigaters.. When the answers are given to you in those videos,like the cowards you are,you wont even address ONE of them.yeah i have ALSO noticed how its been over 24 hours and YOU  did not take me up on my challenge and explain why whats wrong with even ONE of these videos hypocrite. 

as i have said thousands of times over the years,thats a very reasonable request.YOUR just as funny as he is in the fact like all OCTA'S,you wont even address ONE of these videos and explain whats wrong with it.you are easily the biggest hypocrite here i know of other than your fellow agent candytroll.

oh by the way,you also prove you are a major hypocrite moron in the hat because you fail to mention that candycorn does the EXACT same thing that Physics does,everytime he is confronted with evidence and facts that he cant counter,he changes the subject and evades it, and worse,trys to derail the topic, yet you never mention that little tidbit.why would you,you will protect your fellow agent at all costs.

 i could go back and find many posts of people here that have said the exact same thing about him,how they have said he is the only one they have ever put on their ignore list cause of the troll that he is because of that and how they have told people that side with him,they have no credibility since they side with him.matter of fact,there was this one site that he used to post at that so many people put HIM on thier ignore list for that very reason.they made a thread there called IS CANDYCORN ON YOUR IGNORE LIST. Anybody that knows this troll,knows he is the biggest troll alive,that his life is so pathetic,he quotes someone like me who has them on their ignore list.how pitiful.what an attention seeker.the trolls life is so patheitc he quotes me and talks to himself.cant get more pathetic than that. same with divecunt.

I know when someone has ME on thier ignore list,i dont keep talking to them seeking attention. I will address their posts to others like i did with gomer who has me on ignore just to show how stupid their posts is.big different there,im talking to EVERYBODY in that case,im not talking to myself addressing that person like those two trolls with no life do.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


liar
you just post another stupid fucking video

alex jones dupes, the lot of ya


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



says the coward who has never even once taken me up on the challenge to even try to debunk one here despite all my requests.Gomer like divecunt,his rebuttals to them consist of "your videos prove nothing." classic great rebuttal there. thats the ONLY rebuttals you agents EVER have when challenged to refute them. "rolls on floor laughing.what chickenshit cowards.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

Hey divecunt troll,thanks for coming on,i was just talking about you.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Hey divecunt troll,thanks for coming on,i was just talking about you.


keep proving you are the moron i call you


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


they've ALL been debunked totally
you just refuse to admit it like the alex jones dupe you are


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



as usual,the coward frady cat loyal Bush dupe Toto ,can only show the true dumbfuck coward he is, with these comments of his instead of being brave and  take me up on my challenge to talk about them.like clockwork,some things never change.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

hey divecunt,having fun showing everybody the troll you are and how you seek attention by talking to yourself? i know your addressing my posts,your too predictable.

This message is hidden because DiveCon is on your ignore list.

as usual,i make a reasonable request and ask the trolls here  to just address ONE of them,and like the true cowards they are,they run away with their tails between their legss.no sense in sticking around on this thread any longer if you OCTAS are just going to be a bunch of coward chickenshits.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> hey divecunt,having fun showing everybody the troll you are and how you seek attention by talking to yourself? i know your addressing my posts,your too predictable.
> 
> This message is hidden because DiveCon is on your ignore list.


yet you keep responding
LOL
fucking moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 14, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



What a fucking loon, Still calling me names when he is ignored for shit just like that. Maybe he'll understand someday. Anyway, here is one of his 65 videos. it's nearly an hour long but I'll bet the dumbass has never watched it. It's called "Why The Towers Fell" And it's conclusion is that the heat from the fires caused by the fires is what caused the towers to fall. Isn't that a hoot. He has successfully debunked himself.

Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library: Why The Towers Fell


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



this is for the others just so gomer and you all know i am not being the troll divecunt and candycorn are by seeking attention talking to someone who has me on ignore. that one called WHY THE TOWERS FELL is about the only one there thats NOT truthful..and gomers prediction is wrong,i HAVE seen it,it was on that propaganda station controlled by the elite PBS.

WHY that site included that video in there is beyond me,thats one thing i personally would change if i were running that site is not include that video,IF i did,i would have it under a heading called THE GOVERNMENTS FAIRY TALE VERSION,FACTS,LIES AND MISINFORMATION.however i am not the owner who runs that site so i cant do nothing about it.matter  of fact i have emailed the owner of that site and asked him why he has that included but i never get any replys.so as usual,gomer is full of shit that i have debunked myself.THAT video again is a propaganda piece that should not even be there unless of course it is under that heading i mentioned.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


hyet here you are, replying to someone that has you on ignore


HYPOCRITE

LOL


----------



## Patriot911 (Feb 14, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > hey divecunt,having fun showing everybody the troll you are and how you seek attention by talking to yourself? i know your addressing my posts,your too predictable.
> ...



  The irony and hypocricy here is almost too much to take!!!


----------



## candycorn (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yeah sure; you also said you read "over 100 books" about the JFK assassination and interviewed several people there.  All of them pointed to someone on the grassy knoll.  None of them mentioned a driver shooting the President.

Until....

You got here and some moron is daily swearing it was the driver.  You now say it was the driver.

In other words you're lying yet again.  I love pointing that out you crazy decrebit loser.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 14, 2011)

*lol​*


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> *lol​*



As officers in the U.S. military, *we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.*" Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force. Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan

*Military Officers for 9/11 Truth*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 14, 2011)

again, PE posts and doesnt answer any question, just spams that same link again


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 14, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> again, PE posts and doesnt answer any question, just spams that same link again



Which is why he's on ignore. I hardly see any of the loons anymore.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 14, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



First off, let's get this out of the way. The Geraldo interview with Bob McIlvaine was the first post that Prince Evado of Newtonia made on this board. I questioned him about it within hours of his posting it, and to this day he hasn't answered my question. I will repeat it, yet another time, to give him a chance to educate me and sway me to his point of view.

*Hey PhysicsExists, why is it in the video you posted of the Geraldo Rivera interview, does Bob McIlvaine dodge and evade when Geraldo asks him if the architects and engineers agree with his theory.*

Now, to your challenge. I went to Canada Truth 9/11 - Video Library and chose a video at random. Please answer my questions about the video, "Flight 77  The White Plane".

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes Air Force 2 as being the plane that hit the Pentagon. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The Truth Movement wishes to be seen as teachers, and a good teacher would answer questions from their students. If you answer these questions to my satisfaction, I will watch another of your videos (I have bookmarked the site), and will ask any questions I have of that one. Together, we shall research this event, and you may win a convert.

I await your answers to my questions. And in time, Prince Evado may answer my simple question about his first video, and I may look at another one of his, and explore the events of 9/11 with him also.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 14, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > *lol​*
> ...



Please answer my simple question. If you do, I will view and explore your other videos with you.



> *Why is it in the video you posted of the Geraldo Rivera interview, does Bob McIlvaine dodge and evade when Geraldo asks him if the architects and engineers agree with his theory.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 14, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Oh wow, is this loon trying to say that I have broken my oath? I could shoot people for less. But then again he is after all just a loon.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 16, 2011)

click on the green button

Well, that makes 2 of them.

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## KissMy (Feb 16, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of &#8220;active thermetic material&#8221; that utilized &#8220;nano technology&#8221; has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.
> ...



If tons of thermite were used then there should be evidence. Huge piles of slag or molten steel. Where is the evidence? I have yet to see any slag or molten steel.

*This is what thermite residue should look like.*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


whats really funny is the main use of nanothermite is fireworks ignition anhd model rocketry

LOL'


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 16, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


































*FEMA STATEMENT on 9/11:*

Challenge:_ [T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile._

FEMA Response:_ Appendix C: No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identifiedA detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires._


BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


>


photoshoped to make that look different than it is


> http://www.buildingwhat.org


you can NOT pick up "molten metal" with TONGS


----------



## KissMy (Feb 16, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I still do not clearly see molten steel. The first  photos are not detailed enough to tell what they are. Next I see fused concrete & debris around steel, molten lead & aluminum from the UPS power system & aircraft pouring from the 81rst floor & this is likely what the fireman is describing. Someone should have found an actual piece of molten steel that could be examined. Also the source of sulfur has been identified. Entire rooms full of hundreds of UPS batteries in WTC 1,2 & 7.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 16, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Bump.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 16, 2011)

Here are pictures of molten metals supposedly from the WTC. The thing is they show proof of being molten lead from all those UPS batteries inside the WTC buildings. The glass & coins protruding from these globs should have melted way before the steel, but the lead covering these items has a very low melting point. They also shine like lead & not like steel. So there is proof of the molten lead pouring from the WTC & what the firemen saw at ground zero. I have yet to see proof of molten steel.


----------



## eots (Feb 16, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> rat in the hat said:
> 
> 
> > physicsexist said:
> ...



its only breaking your oath if you are aware....


----------



## eots (Feb 16, 2011)

HEY CRAZY BATTERY GUY IS BACK...


----------



## eots (Feb 16, 2011)




----------



## KissMy (Feb 16, 2011)

*Melted Aluminum from a car fire.*






*Melted Aluminum from a home foundry*






*Melted Steel from a cutting torch.*






Melted Lead inside an unmelted steel can.


----------



## eots (Feb 17, 2011)

kissmy said:


> *melted aluminum from a car fire.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ya we all know lead melts Einstein.. Whats your point ??


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



again a loyal bush dupe that wont look at the evidence posted by the thread starter and wont listen to witness testimonys,many being very credible experienced in explosives. i got to tip my hat to J beaukema,he is the first poster at this message board or on the NET anywhere i have been to, who did some research and was willing to  admit he was duped by the Bush administration and admit he was wrong and gave in to his arrogance and  not come up with moronic posts like these and face the truth.this poster has successfully debunked himself with this photo because there have been all kinds of photos posted by terral since he has been here at this site that look just like that. "rolls on floor laughing." 

meantime,divecunt,gomer and the agents here can only make up bullshit lies like-"all those videos of yours have been debunked"  when i ask them to talk about whats wrong with them and debunk one,they wont try to debunk one since they know they cant,and can only fling shit in defeat when they are asked to debunk one of them like the chickenshit cowards they are. gomer and divecunt are right about ONE of those videos,the one called WHY THE TOWERS FELL "HAS" been debunked by the experts and like i said,should not be included with those videos unless it is under the heading of THE GOVERNMENTS FAIRY TALE VERSION THATS BEEN DEBUNKED.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2011)

KissMy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



the 9/11 apologist hard at work.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 17, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


----------



## candycorn (Feb 17, 2011)

KissMy said:


> I still do not clearly see molten steel. The first  photos are not detailed enough to tell what they are. Next I see fused concrete & debris around steel, molten lead & aluminum from the UPS power system & aircraft pouring from the 81rst floor & this is likely what the fireman is describing. Someone should have found an actual piece of molten steel that could be examined. Also the source of sulfur has been identified. Entire rooms full of hundreds of UPS batteries in WTC 1,2 & 7.



Well below grade, all bets are off because nobody knows for sure what was inventoried down there but we do know there was a parking structure.  That means gallons and gallons of gasoline, battery acids, petroleum byproducts and lord knows what else could be in the various offices down there.  There is no telling.  I would imagine that there would be a huge fire in the bowels of the complex.  

Above grade is a different story and all twoofer bullshit stories quickly fall apart.  The plaza beneath the WTC towers was literally full of people on that day.  People leaving, people coming in, people just getting a better look.  Not one was hit by falling melted steel.  Not one.  None.  Zippo!  Obviously if that were melted steel pouring out of the side of the building, there would be dozens of persons who were getting destroyed beneath the spray.  

What you see is simply a twoofer trying to make shit up.  This is what they do and boy do they suck at it.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 18, 2011)

candycorn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not clearly see molten steel. The first  photos are not detailed enough to tell what they are. Next I see fused concrete & debris around steel, molten lead & aluminum from the UPS power system & aircraft pouring from the 81rst floor & this is likely what the fireman is describing. Someone should have found an actual piece of molten steel that could be examined. Also the source of sulfur has been identified. Entire rooms full of hundreds of UPS batteries in WTC 1,2 & 7.
> ...



There is little guesswork involved figuring out what the source of the molten Lead & Aluminum was pouring out of the 81rst floor of WTC-2 where the huge aluminum aircraft came to rest. Large chunks of melted Lead & Aluminum have been found in the debries of the WTC. Documents & blueprints of WTC-2 clearly show the added structural flooring supports installed to handle the weight of the UPS back-up power system installed there. This was the equivalent of over a thousand car batteries full of *Lead & Sulfuric Acid.* It looked something this picture below.


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2011)

kissmy said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > kissmy said:
> ...



a thousand car batteries are insignificant to something with the mass of the wtc towers


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2011)

candycorn said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > I still do not clearly see molten steel. The first  photos are not detailed enough to tell what they are. Next I see fused concrete & debris around steel, molten lead & aluminum from the UPS power system & aircraft pouring from the 81rst floor & this is likely what the fireman is describing. Someone should have found an actual piece of molten steel that could be examined. Also the source of sulfur has been identified. Entire rooms full of hundreds of UPS batteries in WTC 1,2 & 7.
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 18, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


notice, not one of them said it was done by explosives
NONE


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2011)

Eots has never been in a stressful situation where he knew that he could die. So he plays these emotional clips over and over again. We know that hundreds of people heard secondary explosions. We also know that no one heard what could be construed as a controlled demolition explosion.


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> *Eots has never been in a stressful situation where he knew that he could die*. So he plays these emotional clips over and over again. We know that hundreds of people heard secondary explosions. We also know that no one heard what could be construed as a controlled demolition explosion.



an explosion is an explosion...how it is utilized is the difference....and you have no clue radio boy ...I was a commercial diver and fishermen and am sure faced more danger in my time..at sea than you ever did...I hired jackasses like you from the military...they thought they could do it all because the spent ten years on the military's tit ,until we hit the first 4O ft seas...go skipper a 50ft trawler in high seas loaded to the gunnels, with 4 men's lives in your hands and then tell me about stress...jackass


----------



## KissMy (Feb 18, 2011)

Show me just one molten steel beam, that's all I ask. Not the bent beam that can be bent without cracking at 550 degrees. Where are the beams destroyed by a cutter charge or nanothermite? Where is the molten slag left by the nanothermite?

FYI - nanothermite will not allow a beam to be bent without cracking. It must be done with slow even heating not flash heating thermite provides. The fact that that huge bent beam has no thermite rash on it is yet another nail in the thermite coffin.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 18, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > *Eots has never been in a stressful situation where he knew that he could die*. So he plays these emotional clips over and over again. We know that hundreds of people heard secondary explosions. We also know that no one heard what could be construed as a controlled demolition explosion.
> ...




Oh yes, diss the veterans who gave you the right to talk your shit. Way to go eots.

Mr tough guy... LOL


----------



## KissMy (Feb 18, 2011)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > *melted aluminum from a car fire.*
> ...



Just proving to you the aluminum wheel melted yet the fine steel belts inside the rubber tire, the rotor & studs are all still holding shape. Also the lead easily melted without even discoloring the metal can. This is the molten metals seen on 9/11. The fireman said he saw "molten steel running down the channel." FYI molten steel would have melted the channel iron & not ran down it like lead or aluminum. Why hasn't anyone found this molten steel? I have showed you what molten steel should look like. So where is the molten WTC steel?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 18, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



I wonder if 9/11 inside job will ever get around to answering these questions from one of his 65 videos? He's had 4 days to think about it.

I'm anxious to move onto another one.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 18, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



If PhysicsExists does not answer this one simple question by midnight tomorrow St Louis time, I will throw him on ignore, and remove Christophera from my ignore list.

At least Chri$$y would answer questions.


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2011)

KissMy said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > kissmy said:
> ...



lol...nonsense


----------



## eots (Feb 18, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





How did these veterans give me the right to talk ?? and there is no diss it is just the facts
the military is chalk full of fellows that think there basic training and job in the military 
somehow prepares them for such challenges in the civilian world and more often than not 
they are in for a big surprise.


----------



## deebee (Feb 19, 2011)

911 was an inside job. The leaser of the towers got paid 9 billion outta it!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 19, 2011)

deebee said:


> 911 was an inside job. The leaser of the towers got paid 9 billion outta it!


ah, more proof you are a fucking moron


----------



## candycorn (Feb 19, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



If he does, it'll be the first time he's ever answered a question.  I heard he wanted to subpoena Santa Claus for being a government agent because he asked too many questions.


----------



## deebee (Feb 19, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> deebee said:
> 
> 
> > 911 was an inside job. The leaser of the towers got paid 9 billion outta it!
> ...



What research did you do on 911 - NONE?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 19, 2011)

deebee said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > deebee said:
> ...


TONS

and all of it proves you are a fucking IDIOT


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



What language would you be speaking today if not for our veterans?
You haven't a fucking clue.


----------



## eots (Feb 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I would be speaking American English...if any country every invaded this country we would all take arms and kick there asses....or do you not have such faith in your people  or country ?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2011)

eots said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



thats what these agent trolls always blatantly ignore and how they make morons out of themselves is they ignore the testimonys of firefighters many of them who were experienced in explosives. and of course the agents will post whatever their handlers ask them to to ignore what this thread starter posted.all the agents and bush dupes can do is fling shit in defeat over the opening post of this thread starters like the monkeys they are. as i said before,i tip my hate to J the thread starter,he is the ONLY net poster i have EVER seen on any message board be converted and look at the evidence and have the maturity to admit he was proven wrong.


----------



## eots (Feb 19, 2011)




----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2011)

Terral said:


> Hi Robert:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




more and more govt shills are penetrating this site.This Kiss me phony is one as well.He PRETENDS he is interested in the truth by admitting the truth that the governments version of events about the oklahoma city bombing are B.S..see below link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/75702-oklahoma-city-bombing-7.html

He pretends he is interested in the truth exposing that oklahoma city was a government operation that their were multiple bombs that went off,yet he double speaks, proving the agent he is by posting crap about thermite not being present  when Terral himself  has a family owned demolition business making him more qualified that ANY  of these idiots that have come on here and defended the official version of the governments proving this guy is an agent as well and full of shit.This shill of the governments blatantly ignores witness testimonys when you ask him to look at it and comment on it,never doing so and never commenting on what  many  firefighters who were experinced in explosives said and will never comment on them or look at the evidence in the opening post of this thread starters  and just debunks himself like he did in that pic of thermite  when many pics in the past of 9/11 looking just like that HAVE been posted here. 

the agents herer always blatantly ignore that the firefighters "AGAIN MANY EXPERIENCED IN EXPLOSIVES" that when they heard the official explanation of the governments of the collapse they called the 9/11 coverup commission a half baked farce.go on agents,keep making yourselfs out to be the  dumbfuck idiots you are and ignore what these firefighters called the investigation.lol. your pathetic posts arent brainwashing any of us like you want to and like you have successully with others you have in the past.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2011)

deebee said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > deebee said:
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



so says the agent troll Parrot who like Divecunt and all other OCTA'S, is too much of a chickenshit to even try to address one of these videos and runs away like the chickenshit coward he is when given that challenge.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2011)

Anyone have any clue as to what a Hollywood comedy has to do with anything?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone have any clue as to what a Hollywood comedy has to do with anything?



as always,the agent can only fling shit in defeat like the troll he is.


----------



## eots (Feb 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone have any clue as to what a Hollywood comedy has to do with anything?



come on Einstein you can figure it out...use your armmmy training


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 19, 2011)

9/11rimjob and id-eots still using bullshit videos as if they actually mean anything


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 19, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> 9/11rimjob and id-eots still using bullshit videos as if they actually mean anything



Only now they've upgraded to Hollywood comedies. They are actually more believable.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11rimjob and id-eots still using bullshit videos as if they actually mean anything
> ...


they at least have better production quality
LOL


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, times up, and PE has joined my ignore list since he can't seem to answer one little question about his first video.

Now, it's 9/11 inside job's turn. He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes Air Force 2 as being the plane that hit the Pentagon. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them. (Except for PE, since I won't see anything he posts, ever again)

If I don't see a reply in a reasonable time, my ignore list goes up by one.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

Air Force 2?
there is no aircraft designated that
the only time such a designation is given is when the VPOTUS is on ANY of the Air Force planes


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Air Force 2?
> there is no aircraft designated that
> the only time such a designation is given is when the VPOTUS is on ANY of the Air Force planes



The official plane for the vice president is the C-32, which is referred to as Air Force 2 when he is onboard. It is a specialized version of the 757. He also has the C-40 B/C (boeing 737) at his disposal, again AF2 when he's onboard.

The President doesn't use these planes, as they don't have the level of C3 functions he needs in a crisis, so they don't use the AF1 callsign.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Air Force 2?
> ...


yes, but to say it was AF2 is just stupid when clearly the VP wasnt on board
LOL


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 20, 2011)

Well, times up, and PE has joined my ignore list since he can't seem to answer one little question about his first video.

Now, it's 9/11 inside job's turn. He challenged me to watch one of the videos on Canada 9/11 Truth - Video Library. I chose one at random, Flight 77 - The White Plane.

I came up with the following questions, based on my watching all 36:54 minutes of the video.

The first witness claims the plane passed at treetop level over his house, over the Army-Navy Country Club, north of the Citgo station, and onward into the Pentagon. This would be ground effect flight, and experienced pilots could not manage this with any accuracy for the amount of time this would take, so how did this plane manage it?

Witness number 2 says the plane passed at treetop level over his golf course, (well south of the Citgo station) and onward into the Pentagon. Again, how could a pilot manage to fly in ground effect for this distance? Also, the witness claims twice that it was an American Airlines jet. Why does the interviewer browbeat him until he claims it was white?

Witness #3 says the plane was way south of the Citgo station. How does this square up with witness #1? Also this witness never said the plane was white, only that they saw numbers on the plane. Why does the narrator claim that she said it was white?

Witness #4 claims the plane had propellers. Why does the interviewer push her until she says it was a jet?

Witness #5 can't decide what color the plane was. Do you see him as credible?

Witnesses #6 through #9 are quoted, instead of interviewed. Why?

Witness #10 describes the plane that hit the Pentagon as being painted in the same color scheme as the government version of the Boeing 757-200, which is designated as the C-32 by the Air Force, and known as Air Force 2 when the vice president is onboard. Why would the govt. use such a valuable asset for the attack?

Witness #11 says it flew over the Citgo station, contradicting the last 10 witnesses. Why should we believe him?

Witness #12 claims the plane was trying to pull up and avoid the Pentagon. Why do the other 11 witnesses not make this claim? Mr Turcios also says the plane was silver. Again, he makes a claim the other 11 do not. Who do we believe?

The members of 9/11 Truth claim they are trying to teach the rest of us that there was a cover-up of the events of Sept 11, 2001. Here is a chance to educate me about one aspect of that day.

If 9/11 inside job can't or won't answer these questions, I will listen to anyone else willing to answer them. (Except for PE, since I won't see anything he posts, ever again)

If I don't see a reply in a reasonable time, my ignore list goes up by one.


Edited to correct my question regarding Witness #10


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 20, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011


Well, seeing as though a bomb went off in the parking structure of WTC back in the Clinton era, this should be a shock?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 20, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> ...


not hard to believe that found these, since most of the components were used in the construction of the towers
steel, aluminum, there was sulfur in the gypsum wall planks


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 20, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Much of what was found is also used in the prevention of corrosion due to salt air.

It's all a bunch of nothing, YET AGAIN, put out by a bunch of loons.


----------



## KissMy (Feb 20, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Well, seeing as though a bomb went off in the parking structure of WTC back in the Clinton era, this should be a shock?



WIKI: 1993 World Trade Center bombing


> Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin, who helped assemble the complex 1,310 pounds (590 kg) bomb, which was made of a urea nitrate main charge with *aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide particles surrounding the explosive.* The charge used nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate dynamite, smokeless powder and fuse as booster explosives. Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles. The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate.


----------



## eots (Feb 20, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



you parrot that from popular mechanics without any real knowledge or questioning of the  explanation ...


----------



## eots (Feb 20, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Well, seeing as though a bomb went off in the parking structure of WTC back in the Clinton era, this should be a shock?
> ...


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Feb 20, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Dan Rather: "might, might even have been able to stop the bombing"

Jaqueline Adams: "might have been able to stop the bombing.

Using the word "might" leaves a lot of wiggle room.

By the same level of squirming journalism,

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov might, MIGHT, have been able to stop the Oklahoma City bombing.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2011)

eots said:


> HEY CRAZY BATTERY GUY IS BACK...
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-XA0Rv1Ng8





NIST caught lying their asses off and the OCTA's here can only cry in defeat.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



someone replied to this slinging shit in defeat. Great stuff Eots.Yeah they tried it under Clinton with his blessing before in 93 and failed but came back and succeeded under Bush the next time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 24, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





Great stuff there.as you can see Physics,the OCTA trolls here can only fling shit in defeat to this post like the monkeys they are. those firefightes who were experienced in explosives, appropriately called the 9/11 coverup commission, a half baked farce.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 24, 2011)

Actually we point out the facts, you know, those annoying little things like the pictures of the meteor that shows unmelted rebar running all through it. And the pictures that show what looks like it might be something red hot yet paper lying right next to it undamaged.

Do play again.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 24, 2011)

What, these loons still don't have any facts?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Oh well, i'll check back again in a couple o' weeks. You know, just to see if they come back with any facts, or some shit like that.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 27, 2011)

ha,as I knew it,the OCTA'S could only fling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are and cover their ears ans close their eyes to the facts.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 27, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> What, these loons still don't have any facts?
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought.
> 
> Oh well, i'll check back again in a couple o' weeks. You know, just to see if they come back with any facts, or some shit like that.



Yeah the truthers know you OCTA's dont have any facts,thats old news,no need to brag about it.Just because the truth scares you and you cover your ears and close your eyes when facts are presented that you dont like,that doesnt mean facts that prove explosives were used werent used.


----------



## Obamerican (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> ha,as I knew it,the OCTA'S could only fling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are and cover their ears ans close their eyes to the facts.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> ha,as I knew it,the OCTA'S could only fling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are and cover their ears ans close their eyes to the facts.


shit is all you fling, moron


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > What, these loons still don't have any facts?
> ...



Got it, still no facts....


----------



## miller (Feb 27, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011



Maybe there was.  Why believe you or any scientist when you can plainly see the explosion and plainly see the steel beams all over the place.  Look.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 27, 2011)

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

There was no explosion. There isn't an explosive expert in the world who could have pulled it off.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 27, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> 
> 
> Common Ground - February 2011



These samples did they appear 6 years after 911 and were preserved  under conditions that aught to  make  anyone skeptical ?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 27, 2011)

I can understand trying to profit off of 911 , I dont get the mindless parroting of the contrived assemblage of "facts"


----------



## whitehall (Feb 27, 2011)

"Millions of microscopic..." hmm. Cound you fit them in a teaspoon?


----------



## eots (Feb 27, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > > Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author,  peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips  in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be  paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite
> ...



what you should be skeptical of is the fact no such standard testing was done  by NIST immediately after the event or the fact that none of the  of steel forensically tested shows the temperatures required structural for failure


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 27, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> 
> There was no explosion. There isn't an explosive expert in the world who could have pulled it off.



*Exactly. So how do 30 stories crush 70 stories?  Physically impossible. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth*


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> ...


no, it isnt, moron


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 27, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Newton's 3rd Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

30 stories cannot crush 70 stories.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you are an idiot
that post doesnt even make a lick of sense


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 27, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Understandable, this is too high of caliber stuff for you to grasp.  

Isaac Newton says 9/11 was a controlled demolition.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 27, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


PhysicsExist?.......Yeah, no shit.......Take a physics course and you might actually learn, that yes, PHYSICS EXIST!

Hence, two planes fully loaded with fuel rammed two freakin' buildings going full speed, causing two building to fall down..............It's all in the physics!


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 27, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you clearly dont understand mass and inertia


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LOL...


Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng  Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.  Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden.  Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988).  Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986).  Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000.  Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers.  Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology.  37 year NASA career.


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."

AE911Truth.org

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


L M A O!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> ...


My one fist could crush your big head, causing you to fall down........FACT!

It's as simple as that.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


just the fact that he claims "pyroclastic clouds" shows he has lost his mind


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 28, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Yeah, who was the artist who cut his own ear off?

He was brilliant too. Right up until he lopped his own friggin' ear off.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> ...



Kinetic  energy .


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

wicked jester said:


> physicsexist said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



no, you are as simple as that


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

wicked jester said:


> divecon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



and now simple simple simon is inaccurately going to parrot the py gong to is going to claim pyrooclastic clouds only come from volcanoes


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *Exactly. So how do 30 stories crush 70 stories?  Physically impossible. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth*



Are you trying to say that the tower collapse is like a foot crushing a soda can? Where the can compresses into a nice, neat little package?

When that "30 story block" started to descend, what did it hit first? The floor below?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."



1. Can you show me a video or photo of the "massive structural members" being hurled horizontally?

2. Can you tell me in what way the clouds created from the collapse are similar to pyroclastic clouds? Did these clouds have hot gas and rock fragments? Did it travel up to 420 mph?


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > *Exactly. So how do 30 stories crush 70 stories?  Physically impossible. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth*
> ...



it was mostly dust before the concrete hit anything  and what about the core ?


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > "The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]."
> ...



yes it was hot and contained rock fragments


----------



## konradv (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> ...



One story at a time.  NOT physically impossible.  The underlying stories won't help save the story about to be crushed.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
> ...



Extremely possible since we watched it happen.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

konradv said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



in a matter of seconds..including the core...3 times in one day


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



How hot eots?


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



What was mostly dust?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

30 stories crush one story then 31 stories crush another then 32 stories go into another, It isn't difficult, we can all see that all 110 stories did not give in at the same moment. But we do know for fact that the buildings were moving before the collapse started. One wall had moved approximately 55 inches (Concave). Now what caused that if not for sagging, weakened support beams? Or what ever you want to call them.


----------



## konradv (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



The underlying physics doesn't change no matter how many times it happens!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> 30 stories crush one story then 31 stories crush another then 32 stories go into another, It isn't difficult, we can all see that all 110 stories did not give in at the same moment. But we do know for fact that the buildings were moving before the collapse started. One wall had moved approximately 55 inches (Concave). Now what caused that if not for sagging, weakened support beams? Or what ever you want to call them.



Hey eots. When that 30 story block came down, were the FLOOR connections to the perimeter facade columns and core columns supposed to resist that mass and energy? Or were the floors and connections designed to handle static loads only?

Take your time.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So it was faster then free fall speed.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

Eots, are you telling me that the truss connections circled in red in the next photo,






Where designed to resist this coming down on the floor below, which used those connections?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 30 stories crush one story then 31 stories crush another then 32 stories go into another, It isn't difficult, we can all see that all 110 stories did not give in at the same moment. But we do know for fact that the buildings were moving before the collapse started. One wall had moved approximately 55 inches (Concave). Now what caused that if not for sagging, weakened support beams? Or what ever you want to call them.
> ...



He doesn't know  what the floor design rating was in tons,  he will do a furious dance but in the  end he doesn't know.


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)




----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Eots, are you telling me that the truss connections circled in red in the next photo,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



are you telling me it offered zero resistance and what about the core ?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Eots, are you telling me that the truss connections circled in red in the next photo,
> ...



Zero resistance is your claim.
 You have not provided the time in seconds  nor the the speed in MPH.
You stand on vague claims, diversions and deflections.


----------



## Gamolon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Eots, are you telling me that the truss connections circled in red in the next photo,
> ...



Answer my question. Are those floor truss supports for that one floor designed to resist that 30 story block coming down?

Yes or no?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 28, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



*BASIC PHYSICS:

Isaac Newton's 3rd Law:For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. *

~30 Story block cannot crush a ~70 Story block based off this BASIC LAW.

You cannot grasp this?

Not to mention the top tilted, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO STOP TILTING, UNLESS THE LOWER FLOORS WERE GONE.  How were they gone?  Oh, controlled demolition.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Not  at once ...
One floor at a time, thats  different.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...




What's holding up that 1 story?  69 other ones correct?  Learn basic physics.  you cannot grasp it, this is embarrassing.
*BASIC PHYSICS:

Isaac Newton's 3rd Law:For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. *

~30 Story block cannot crush a ~70 Story block based off this BASIC LAW.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Not to mention the top tilted, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO STOP TILTING, UNLESS THE LOWER FLOORS WERE GONE.  How were they gone?  Oh, controlled demolition.



So the top tilted and didnt stop tilting and would still be tilting if the floors were still there?
How long would this tilting be going on?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...




So the "hypothetical explosion" would have  launched the top  part of the building into  space!


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



in your bizzaro world of physics.. ? most likely, yes


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



He can have it  both ways.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Feb 28, 2011)

What ever it takes to make their stories work.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You obviously slept through junior high science classes,you need to go back and finish it.again you keep closing your eyes and ears and ignoring what you dont want to hear.great way to be objective.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 28, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...





they obviously slept through junior high science class.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


did you even graduate from high school?


----------



## Wicked Jester (Feb 28, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


Nope!........was wide awake during junior high science class, as well as high school physics. That's why I can sit here and tell you repeatedly that you and your fellow trufer loons are full o' shit!


----------



## eots (Feb 28, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



you are just a ranting fool that has not presented a single reasonable thought...don't pretend


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 28, 2011)

eots said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


and when have you presented such?
and i dont mean your C&P efforts


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 1, 2011)




----------



## Jeremy (Mar 1, 2011)

Forget to take you amitriptyline again?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

If Gage is so sure about his conclusions, why is it he will only agree to a debate with a wedding officiant with an English degree?

Riveting 2-hour Radio Trial

He must be too chickenshit to go up against anyone with a degree in structural engineering, or someone in the controlled demolitions field.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> If Gage is so sure about his conclusions, why is it he will only agree to a debate with a wedding officiant with an English degree?
> 
> Riveting 2-hour Radio Trial
> 
> He must be too chickenshit to go up against anyone with a degree in structural engineering, or someone in the controlled demolitions field.


in another video someone posted, Gage claimed the towers were constructed in the 80's


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > If Gage is so sure about his conclusions, why is it he will only agree to a debate with a wedding officiant with an English degree?
> ...



Gage will claim anything, as long as the DVD can be sold at the twoofer sites for the introductory low price of $29.95.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Here's how Richard Gage proves "THE TRUTH"TM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw&feature=player_embedded#at=24


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Here's how Richard Gage proves "THE TRUTH"TM
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw&feature=player_embedded#at=24


ROFLMAO

what a clown he is
and he has the sucker troofers sending him money


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Let's look at the young heroes of the TRUTHTM "movement"

I present to you, The loose change gang.

Korey Rowe - Dope Pusher.

Loose Change Producer Arrested for Allegedly Selling Heroin to Undercover Officer.

Jason Bermas - Pizza Cook


And I can't find a link, but Dylan Avery is desperate to find someone who will put him back on the radio.

These three jokers had it all. For a while after Loose Change was released, the world was their oyster. They pissed it away by adding any goofy oddball theory into their "documentary" until it became the funniest joke on the web.

Gage, Balsamo, Ventera, Judy Woods, A. & S. Jones and Deets paved the path to obscurity for them. They are just really good followers.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Mar 1, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Here's how Richard Gage proves "THE TRUTH"TM
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw&feature=player_embedded#at=24



Wow!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

And let's not forget their silly meme that fire does not weaken steel.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Some of the thermite/thermate must have malfunctioned.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Somebody must have forgotten to tell the south tower core that it was supposed to explode in Judy Wood's energy beam.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Here's some fun from John Lear, Rob Balsamo's go-to guy for all things aeronautic.

Color of Lunar Sky


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

More giggles from John Lear, the gift that keeps on giving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S3pv_SiHr0&feature=player_embedded#at=53


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

Here's Jesse Ventura's claims of "voice morphing" being shot to shit.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

The conspiracy freaks like to claim that the Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet.

This video pisses them off.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 1, 2011)

I know that 911 inside jobbity-job-job and FizzlesExist have me on ignore, but maybe E(di)ots will try to refute my last posts.

And what the hell, I'm in a rare form tonight. Maybe someone will step up and answer the question I've been trying to get Fizzles to answer for months.

*Why does Bob McIlvaine waffle and evade when Geraldo Rivera asks him if the architects and engineers support his theories?  *

I'm not relying on any of the Twoofers to answer the question, so don't expect me to hold my breath waiting.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> What's holding up that 1 story?  69 other ones correct?  Learn basic physics.  you cannot grasp it, this is embarrassing.



Your grasp of structures and loads is SEVERELY lacking.

Here is why you are making wrong assumptions.

The tower as a whole is composed of many different components and connections. Let's give you a simple example.

Let's pound a steel column into the ground. Let's weld a 4" wide x 8" long x 1/4" thick steel plate to the side of the column so the the 4" wide section is perpendicular to the face of the column and welded along the 8" length. Now let's take a sledgehammer and beat the top of that plate.

What's going to give? The weakest point of those components? You'll bend the plate before the column even budges.

See what you fail to see is yes, the columns support the structure a a whole, but the truss supports were designed to hold ONLY THE FLOOR and it's static load, which distributes that load to the columns. Those support, circled in red in the photo below, were never designed to hold up a collapsing 30 story block from above.

SO when that block hit the first floor below, the truss supports failed and the block became 31 stories. 

This is why you see sections of perimeter columns falling AWAY from the tower as the debris block descended downward. Once the floor trusses were destroyed, there was nothing holding the perimeter columns up and the debris block pushed them outwards.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Not to mention the top tilted, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO STOP TILTING, UNLESS THE LOWER FLOORS WERE GONE.  How were they gone?  Oh, controlled demolition.



This makes no sense. How do missing floors stop the tilt?


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 1, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Here's some fun from John Lear, Rob Balsamo's go-to guy for all things aeronautic.
> 
> Color of Lunar Sky


holy crap


----------



## Wicked Jester (Mar 1, 2011)

This is all we need to know about the twoofer movement:

CHARLIE SHEEN WALKS AMONGST THEM!

Case closed, end of story.

"Ridin' that train, high on cocaine. Casey Jones you'd better, waaaatch your speed"


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 2, 2011)

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Scholars For 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
AE911Truth.org

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

The Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.

9/11 Needs to be reinvestigated because the 9/11 commission was "SET UP TO FAIL" - 9/11 Commissioners said this themselves.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

OMG, it was mini-nukes.


----------



## DiveCon (Mar 2, 2011)

new nickname for PE

Sir Spam-A-Lot


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> new nickname for PE
> 
> Sir Spam-A-Lot



And here is his theme song.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > new nickname for PE
> ...



p.s. *stop the brown dwarf...buy silver!!!!!!!*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Mar 2, 2011)

Wow, just fucking wow.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 9, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


>



Thanks for proving my point of no molten steel or thermite. Why don't you show the temps with your NASA pic? *The NASA photo actually proves there was no thermite burning at the WTC complex.* Thermite burns in excess of 4400 degrees but the NASA thermal image shows no temps above 1300 degrees thus proving no thermite temps.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

kissmy said:


> physicsexist said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



it burns very quickly moron...it would not still be actively burning at this point...but all it came in contact with would still be very hot


----------



## KissMy (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> kissmy said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for proving my point of no molten steel or thermite. Why don't you show the temps with your nasa pic? *The nasa photo actually proves there was no thermite burning at the wtc complex.* Thermite burns in excess of 4400°F degrees but the nasa thermal image shows no temps above 1300°F degrees thus proving no thermite temps.
> ...



Wrong! - These temps were all from utilities, office & automotive fires.

Backdraft flame peak = 1,950°F
Natural Gas = 1,500°F
Candle flame = 1,400°F
Charcoal (draft) = 1,390°F
Methanol = 1,200°F
Gasoline = 1,030°F
Wood = 1,030°F


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2011)

But where are the temperatures that would have allowed for the rivers of molten metal?


----------



## KissMy (Mar 10, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> But where are the temperatures that would have allowed for the rivers of molten metal?



Those temps are high enough to make these abundant metals at the WTC molten (Aluminum, Lead, Zinc, Bronze, Cadmium, Magnesium, Potassium, & Tin)

Those temps are not high enough to make the WTC steel molten, but 550°F is the ideal temp for bending the WTC steel without it cracking.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

KissMy said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > But where are the temperatures that would have allowed for the rivers of molten metal?
> ...



LOL..OH IS IT REALLY !...please do go on


----------



## KissMy (Mar 10, 2011)

METALLURGICAL PROCESS OF BENDING STEEL TO DESIRED CURVATURE OR STRAIGHTNESS WHILE AVOIDING LOSSES IN STRENGTH


> United States Patent 3720087 A metallurgical process for bending steel bars or rods to the desired finished curvature or straightness without the normally expected losses in strength properties by bending the steel to straighten, etc., while at a temperature within the range of 300°-900° F. and *preferably 400°-700° F*. Steels which respond to such treatment are of the type which precipitation harden in response to such bending.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 10, 2011)

eots said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



And that people, is a prime example of avoiding a question.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 10, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> Scholars For 9/11 Truth
> Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
> Scientists for 9/11 Truth
> ...



the OCTA'S can only sling shit in defeat like the monkeys they are over this post everytime.


----------



## Obamerican (Mar 10, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 10, 2011)

there's one of the monkeys coming back now to fling shit in defeat over that post.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 10, 2011)

and claim they did or made..
I don`t go for conspiracy theory crap either but the counter arguments here are absolutely ridiculous...I`ll just box a few of them in here, and the names of those who wrote that are`nt important



> Did you know that at inspection points around the Country they get false readings of explosives all the time? many things can SEEM to be the dreaded explosives and then upon further investigation turn out to be nothing at all.
> 
> Thermite = aluminum and rust. It can be found nearly everywhere if you want it to be found.
> 
> ...



1. Nano Thermite is not an explosive. The false readings You refer to are trace nitrates and there are no nitrates in Thermite.
2.Thermite= aluminum and rust...that guy is an Wikipaedia Internet "Chemist" and tries to pose as an expert
3 . Only the U.S. is privy how it`s made..
He thinks, because it`s not posted in Wikipedia it`s a "secret" only the U.S. M.I.C. knows
4.It did not exist before "911"....Again because the instant Googler "Chemists" come up empty, so it does or did not exist.

Well I have news for You!* There are a lot of people who know how to make "nano thermite",* not just "thermite" which is all You`ll ever find in Wikipedia 
And it`s not mad out of "rust" and aluminium. *That`s how "Thermite" was  made in stone age chemistry times,* as a welding, NOT A CUTTING MATERIAL...because this "thermite" leaves molten iron behind the same way an arc-welder electrode leaves a puddle of iron and fuses 2 parts together i.e. "welding"!

*CUTTING THERMITE is something  ENTIRELY DIFFERENT* and the core principle is NOT Fe(+3) and Fe(2)O(3) as in simple rust!
It`s :
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




+, but not necessarily Aluminium ! Because with Magnesium it gets even hotter, and the "ballistic speed"= meters/second is almost 2 X as with Al !

Since when is the technique how to make "nano" sized particle "a secret, that only the U.S" knows...????
*Everybody in the pharmaceutical Industry knows* how to make these, and that`s where these M.I.C. "super scientists" got it from...*they did not invent it*

It`s done in a spray drier, the same way how "instant coffee" is spray dried. All You have to do is up the spray nozzle pressure and the particle size in the hot air counter flow  tube get smaller and smaller, the higher the pressure.... and larger with less spray pressure.
*You can "dial in" any particle size You want...!!!!,* even if You are not part of a "super secret military lab..."

*Shit they just buy that stuff from Chem-Plants that have spray drier...one of these  is just outside Memphis!
They make "nano thermite" and stock pile it*
Ask  @ the gate, maybe they`ll give You a tour through the plant...then You`ll know a heck of a lot more instead of sitting in front of a PC all day long every day  and Google or "Wiki" dicky your brains down to Moron levels and calling other people "stupid"

And no, the stuff You want to dry to "nano" sized particles does not have to be in solution, You can use a suspension.
Fuck I hate using this stupid word "nano" here, because *it should really be MICRO *and certainly not nano
Of course no matter how  much You up the nozzle pressure, the lower size limit is your particle size in suspension.
So for nano sized particles to make "nano" thermite You use "electrolytic sponges" of the iron, and the Al or Mg component, whichever the work sheet say You are supposed to make, mix them in a vat as an aqueous suspension in proper proportion and run it into the spray drier at ~ 350 psi nozzle pressure.

*I know because I did make "nano" thermite *...and lots of it, unlike You here who says "I made thermite I know what it does"
If I want to have a good laugh, I either read news papers or read what "experts" post in forums, like this one.

I only looked in here because I do find it a bit puzzling how some of these buildings collapsed at such speed into their own footprint...but no way would I hope to find an actual Expert on this subject in a public discussion forum, where everybody seems to know everything without ever having had to study 1 single semester or pass one single exam. "Google" makes instant  experts out of every idiot with an internet connection these days
Even the word "nano" in front of the new 911 buzz word "nano thermite" is a bunch of crap..
*it`s far from being a nano sized particle its in fact a micro particle*...
else You would not be able to package it, because it would run through the packaging material like water thru a noodle sieve if it were "nano" ....this is just a name it got from people who heard of it and really have no exact idea what it is, how it`s made and* WHO ALL, DOES MAKE IT*
The process can`t be patented, because Spray driers have already been patented, and unless somebody more clever than I can outsmart  the patent legislation and patent it, then he will have to make it public how he made it and then the rest of you "experts" can look it up @ Wikipedia with the other knowledge crumbs for bird brains

And all these ever all knowing "experts" who ridicule everyone who questions the official story how these buildings collapsed are the ones that are really stupid...
They use the "nano" in front of the thermite and insist the same way as the people they want to ridicule that "the U.S. Military..are the only people who know"....how to make "nano thermite"....which is how the theorists want to show who took these buildings down in the first place!

*Fuck, before You ridicule people who don`t believe everything that`s being said on TV or in News papers, make sure You don`t say dumber things than the people you want to call dumb!*


----------



## KissMy (Mar 10, 2011)

polarbear said:


> Well I have news for You!* There are a lot of people who know how to make "nano thermite",* not just "thermite" which is all You`ll ever find in Wikipedia
> And it`s not mad out of "rust" and aluminium. *That`s how "Thermite" was  made in stone age chemistry times,* as a welding, NOT A CUTTING MATERIAL...because this "thermite" leaves molten iron behind the same way an arc-welder electrode leaves a puddle of iron and fuses 2 parts together i.e. "welding"!
> 
> *CUTTING THERMITE is something  ENTIRELY DIFFERENT* and the core principle is NOT Fe(+3) and Fe(2)O(3) as in simple rust!
> ...



Stone age thermite along with the other types can be used as a cutter if it is contained in a pressure vessel that is securely fastened to the steel it is cutting. However there has been no such thermite cutter pressure vessel & no thermite cut steel evidence found at the WTC site.


----------



## eots (Mar 10, 2011)

polarbear said:


> and claim they did or made..
> I don`t go for conspiracy theory crap either but the counter arguments here are absolutely ridiculous...i`ll just box a few of them in here, and the names of those who wrote that are`nt important
> 
> 
> ...



troll....total fake


----------



## KissMy (Mar 14, 2011)

eots said:


> troll....total fake



Why would you call polarbear a total fake troll?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 21, 2011)

*Explosive Residues*

_Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

*&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;*

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.
http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

And 1000 degree heat didn't set this thermite off..... So interesting that it is unbelievable.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And 1000 degree heat didn't set this thermite off..... So interesting that it is unbelievable.



what are you talking about ???...grasp for straws or what


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And 1000 degree heat didn't set this thermite off..... So interesting that it is unbelievable.
> ...



How hot were the fires in the WTC? And how hot does thermite burn? There would not have been all this active thermite floating around. It all would have been ignited. Even you should understand that.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



the fires were confined to several floors


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 21, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...




So you are making the claim that there was active thermite planted in the buildings but that enough of it didn't ignite that these people could find it in the dust?

 So whoever rigged the building not only was sharp enough to do it without being seen or arising suspicions, but the were also incompetent enough to not get it right.....

God you make it so easy.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 21, 2011)




----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 Wrong, the type of charges allegedly used have very specific conditions of ignition and detonation, if applied in a liquid form like paint, it dries to form a durable coating that requires a high-temperature igniter to start the reaction by heating a spot to the 2,200ºC ignition temperature. 
A nanothermite kicker charge is stable up to a very high temperature and is encased in a protective insulating capsule shaped like a fire-extinguisher bottle. They apparently have very specific conditions of ignition and detonation.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



 It is possible the equipment installation was disguised so that the very workers doing the installation work are oblivious to the fact that they are installing demolition equipment. None of the equipment looks anything like conventional demolition gear, no wires or det cord if 2-channel wireless micro-detonators were used. Even the planes could have been directed to their targets with the remote control technology available for apparently decades now.
Heck from what I read this stuff could be made in ceiling tiles.


----------



## candycorn (Mar 21, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Spoken like someone who has never gone anywhere and has never done a damn thing in her life.  

So workers were installing bombs and not knowing....You're just fucking stupid enough to believe something like that could really happen.  

Can you post a picture of a "2 channel wireless micro-detonator" for us?  Please.  Or is that something else you just made up--like that story where we were supposedly planting WMDS in Iraq...remember that?    

And let me get this straight...the planes that were now guided into the targets didn't dislodge any of these "2 channel wireless micro-detonators" or are they also indestructible in your mind?  

It literally never ends with you losers. 

By the way, Bush won Ohio twice.  Say hi to CD for me.  

Fuck off bitch.


----------



## eots (Mar 21, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



it could of been planted on the lower third of the building...according to the controlled demolition expert and former employee of controlled demolition inc .. popular mechanics favorite source to quote and cite as the worlds leading experts on controlled demolition


----------



## KissMy (Mar 22, 2011)

Mr. Jones said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Go paint some "thermite paint" on one of those huge steel beams. It won't do much to that beam when ignited except a flash burn. All it might do is give it a rough texture. It certainly could not melt the beam. Thermite paint would not slowly & evenly heat the beams to over 550 degree so it could be bent without cracking like the steady heat from the office fires did.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh geezus  candycorn posts here?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



And that same former employee described how the beams had to be cut with a torch and the elevators removed and the beams in the shafts cut......

Sorry but he is telling you that it didn't happen while you fools are hearing that it did.


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 22, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._
> 
> Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? _


_

Wow. 

Your comprehension on this issue is zero.

He was asked about the TOTAL collapse time, not a portion of it. Hence the total collpase time was not at free fall, but 40% slower...._


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 22, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> Oh geezus  candycorn posts here?



is that ANY surprise? shouldnt be since he is the biggest troll of message boards.You DO know that he posts at SEVERAL message boards right? so why the surprise that the biggest attention seeking troll is here at this site as well?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 22, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


----------



## Mr. Jones (Mar 22, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Go paint some "thermite paint" on one of those huge steel beams. It won't do much to that beam when ignited except a flash burn. All it might do is give it a rough texture. It certainly could not melt the beam. Thermite paint would not slowly & evenly heat the beams to over 550 degree so it could be bent without cracking like the steady heat from the office fires did.


The fires at the WTC 7 did not, could not have heated up all the critical beams and supports to cause the symmetrical collapse resembling a CD. The building would have partially collapsed to the weakest side and would have been noticeable by the outer facade showing signs of displacement. Instead it collapsed at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds, and fell in one large unit. 
The fire in 1975 at the WTC north tower, it burned six floors for three hours, and did not cause the BS NIST says happened on 9-11.

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures inexcess of 700deg.C. (1,292F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. *In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced*" (NY Times, 2-15-1975).

NIST's own studies "found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482deg.F (250degC.)"

A whopping 99 floors of weight above the affected area, as opposed to 12 and 28 on 9/11.

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6... ³Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire. So why didn't it even partially collapse?
What happened to your fires "heated the beams slowly and EVENLY on that day? You have no concept of heating up steel, nor how it dissipates heat. There is no way these fires caused the symmetrical collapse and pulverization of the WTC buildings, to believe they did is a display of ignorance.
Concerning WTC7-
Further problems for NIST's new story result from admissions NIST has made about the state of the fires in the building, and the design of the structure. NIST admits that the fires in WTC 7 were typical office fires, and that the fires could not move from floor to floor.

"Their growth and spread were consistent with ordinary building contents fires." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii 
"There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread until perhaps just before the WTC 7 collapse. Thus, the fire-rated floors were successful as fire penetration barriers." NCSTAR 1A, p 55

Add to these facts that NIST admitted in their December 2007 advisory committee meeting that the fuel load could only support 20 minutes of fire in any given location.  Hardly enough time to support your crazy assumption that the fires " moved slowly and evenly" at the required temps...to alll the critical load beams...at the same time...to cause the symmetrical collapse and freefall of the building.

NIST now has a new "obvious" story. The new story is based on a "new phenomenon" of thermal expansion whereby fully insulated steel beams are exposed to temperatures of 600&#65533;C in only 32 minutes. Believe it or not, NIST actually says this happened in only a few seconds (NCSTAR 1-9, table 8-2, p 353).

This extreme temperature, which did not weaken the beams at all, as would have happened in WTC 1 or WTC 2, broke all the shear studs, seat bolts and clip bolts on all the beams of the east wall of WTC 7. The beams then expanded linearly, pushing the girder between column 79 and column 44 by a maximum of 2.2 inches, causing that critical girder to buckle and fall away from columns 79 and 44.

We have seen that this "initial local failure" is not realistic. This is because the fire times could not possibly have caused the high steel temperatures cited, the steel would not have remained rigid if those temperatures had been reached, and the very slight thermal expansion would not have been great enough to cause the extensive girder damage imagined by NIST.

we are led to believe that the one fallen girder caused one column to buckle and that meant the total destruction of this 47-story building in a matter of seconds.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Mr Jennings is either a liar or is very sadly mistaken on his times. He talks about explosions in WTC 7 before the first tower collapse. yet there is no video of that day showing any smoke or debris from WTC7 until after it is hit by the second tower. Facts will hurt you every time.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> physicsexist said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



as is any eyewitness that doesn't fit your story


----------



## signelect (Mar 22, 2011)

This is getting bored.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btQKGvVRnZ8&feature=player_embedded#at=97


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > physicsexist said:
> ...



Facts Eots, just facts. How could Mr Jennings had a stairwell in building 7 collapse before either tower fell and no cameras picked up on the smoke that he is talking about. There was no smoke on the 6th or 8th floor of building 7 until after the collapse of the towers.

Just simple facts. Unless of course you have some physical evidence you would like to show us.....


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



you act as if there is hours of professional footage taken of the wtc 7 there is not...because something was not captured on the few amateur clips available means nothing... Certainly far less than his testimony


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 22, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Hundreds of video cameras going and you don't think there's any that capture WTC7 before the collapse of the towers?

 News flash::: Had there been any signs of an explosion in WTC7 prior to the collapse of either tower, some of those those cameras would have switched over to it at least for a while.


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



you have access to hundreds of clips of wtc 7.....link please !!!!


----------



## eots (Mar 22, 2011)




----------



## Jeremy (Mar 22, 2011)

Hey Eots.

Long time no LMAO.

Howz you been you crazy fuck?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Mar 23, 2011)

Jeremy said:


> Hey Eots.
> 
> Long time no LMAO.
> 
> Howz you been you crazy fuck?


'

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth

www.investigatebuilding7.org Wake up hater.

*Investigate Building 7:* 
_A Call to Reexamine the Most Important Event of Our Time will run from 9:30am to 9:30pm on March 26 at the University of Hartford&#8217;s Millard Auditorium. This historic event will feature the most articulate voices in the growing movement to bring about a new 9/11 investigation. Experts who have studied the events of 9/11 extensively will introduce irrefutable evidence demonstrating the need for a new investigation, and they will be calling upon New York City elected officials and the media to reexamine the most important event of our time, starting with the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7._


----------



## KissMy (Mar 23, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Eots.
> ...



The powers that be are just trying to get all the crazies to gather at the University of Hartfords Millard Auditorium so they can hit you with their gas & mind altering wave to erase all knowledge of 9/11 from your mind. Proceed with caution if you plan to attend. Don't drink the water, wear a tinfoil hat & gas mask.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 23, 2011)

KissMy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



I wonder if more than 200 show up?


----------



## Douger (Mar 23, 2011)

Important event ?
 Coup is more accurate.
You got yourself a military-industrial Dictatorship.
Next up.
Iran....or Somalia.or ???


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

Can the collision of an aluminum aircraft into rusty steel beams cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?

Can the collision of the WTC aluminum facade & its rusty steel beams during the collapse cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4De8-B1CSk"]Thermite Balls[/ame]

*You Bet It Can!!!*

Truthers have a *huge problem.*


----------



## eots (Mar 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> Can the collision of an aluminum aircraft into rusty steel beams cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?
> 
> Can the collision of the WTC aluminum facade & its rusty steel beams during the collapse cause a thermite reaction creating iron spheroids?
> 
> ...



are you trying to pretend this in anyway explains either the collapse or finding un-ignited nano thermite because it simply does not even come close ,in fact it is a meaningless diversion and only shows your lack of understanding or dishonesty


----------



## Gamolon (Mar 29, 2011)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peUB03Qjk7g&feature=related



Three questions about the above video.

1. Squibs. Can you prove without a doubt that those were caused by explosives and not air pressure?

2. Why would they demolish the [perimeter columns? Those "squibs" originated at the perimeter columns.

3. Those red arrows are pointing to what? Column sections? I have news for you. That was the aluminum cladding coming off the perimeter columns.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2011)

eots said:


> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



still waiting ollie


----------



## Patriot911 (Mar 31, 2011)

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



Silly little truthtards.  They twist what is said and pretend that is the truth.

There are hundreds of clips from 9/11.  None of the address an explosion at WTC 7 prior to the collapse.    

Now how about addressing SFC Ollie's point which is if there had been an explosion at WTC 7 prior to the collapses there would have been massive coverage of the event.  Yet not one peep.  Strange......

Yet another fact the truthtards will run away from!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Mar 31, 2011)

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > sfc ollie said:
> ...



You can wait until hell freezes over or at least until you comprehend what is said. Try leaving the weed alone for a few months and read it again.


----------



## eots (Mar 31, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 1, 2011)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Apr 1, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King: insight into what most likely happened that day
> ...



No answer eots?

Typical.


----------



## eots (Apr 1, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 1, 2011)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuSeuxjiJQ]YouTube - Barry Jennings: WTC 7 (Explosions) Interview[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STbD9XMCOho]YouTube - The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


> YouTube - Barry Jennings: WTC 7 (Explosions) Interview
> 
> YouTube - The Elephant In The Room:Kevin McPadden, 9/11-1st Responder



Eots, please tell us why there are no audio recordings of the explosions that Mr. McPadden is talking about.


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


> no one but you has said 3oo hundred firemen where in on it but you ninny and the fact remains there are first responders and people trapped in wtc 7 that report massive  explosions


Are you retarded?  A massive explosion in WTC 7 before the collapse of either tower would have been known by EVERYONE at ground zero.  You can't keep shit like that quiet unless everyone is in on it.  Come on.  You pretend you're smart.  Time to man up and realize the ridiculousness of your position.  But then again, I know you will refuse to consider the fact you're wrong.

Kevin is just an outright liar as demonstrated by the fact there is only two or three who pretend to have heard explosives.  Everyone else didn't.  The audio recordings don't record the massive explosion Kevin claimed to have heard.  So either every audio recording is wrong or your hero is a fucking piece of shit liar.


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > no one but you has said 3oo hundred firemen where in on it but you ninny and the fact remains there are first responders and people trapped in wtc 7 that report massive  explosions
> ...



so any wittiness that heard an explosion is a liar...I see and why do you make the flase claim that no one else reported explosions ?


----------



## Mad Scientist (Apr 2, 2011)

We may *neve*r know if the Twin Towers were purposely imploded or not, just not enough evidence there to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they were. Just like the JFK assassination. 

But one thing I do know for certain is that Al Qaida in Libya is *our friend*. But once they come here, *they're our mortal enemies!*


----------



## eots (Apr 2, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > YouTube - Barry Jennings: WTC 7 (Explosions) Interview
> ...



if there are any they are most Likely in the hands of NIST


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 2, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



So there are no recordings. Every major TV network in the world that had a camera in NYC that morning had it on and recording everything that they could and not one of them recorded these explosions. Do you begin to see what I'm saying?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



As officers in the U.S. military, we took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign *and domestic*." Regardless of our current status -- active duty, reserves, retired, or civilian -- that oath remains in force.



> Therefore it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, how much we have to suffer, or where it leads us. We owe this to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and we owe it to those who are following that same oath today in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe the official account of 9/11 as defined in the 9/11 Commission Report is grossly inaccurate and fatally flawed. It is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that those responsible can be identified and brought to justice in order that they and similarly-minded people never again commit such heinous crimes. It is also imperative that we have an accurate understanding of 9/11 so that governmental policies resulting from 9/11 are based on truth rather than deception.



Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

The worst a man could do is betray his people and break his oath.  Ollie, you are a coward...but worst of all, *a traitor.*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4]YouTube - Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Fuck you shit breath. After you have worn the uniform and lived under the oath for as long as I have then and only then will we ever discuss your views on it. Until then Fuck you very much, you don't know shit about it. And I can guarantee you that those prior service members who are members of your miniature group would tell you the same thing.

It really hurts you to be that wrong doesn't it?


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I am still waiting for the link to your hundreds of wtc 7  collapse videos


----------



## Patriot911 (Apr 3, 2011)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Ah.  More bullshit lying from eots.  Anyone who ever had any doubt about the absolute dishonesty of eots should look at this and understand exactly what kind of piece of shit fucktard he really is.

Where did I ever say or imply anyone who heard an explosion is a liar?  I called Kevin a liar because his story doesn't match anyone elses experience or the physical evidence.  He also claimed to hear a countdown that isn't on any of the recordings taken on 9/11.  Why is it truthtards believe the extreme frings of witnesses and believe them over everyone else?    How utterly retarded is that!  

People heard explosions.  Explosions were caught on tape.  There is no doubt there were explosions.  It is when stupid fuckers like you pretend all explosions HAD to be caused by explosives that your shitty theory's wheels fall off.   

So way to go, eots!  You've exposed your sorry ass as the utter dishonest liar that you are.  Aren't you proud of yourself?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Apr 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



You sound very immature and you seem not to be able to hold your composure when it comes to the FACTS of NANOTHERMITE and FREE FALL.  Is it because you can't debunk it, so you just stirr up some other issues while personally attacking people? 

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://rememberbuilding7.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related]YouTube - WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)[/ame]_


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Never said there were. But I wouldn't doubt it. If not for all the truther links cluttering up Google we might be able to find some serious things. But Every nut has to have his say...


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 3, 2011)

Why would anyone want to blow up dust?


----------



## Mr. Jones (Apr 3, 2011)

Gamolon said:


> Squibs. Can you prove without a doubt that those were caused by explosives and not air pressure?


It is NIST that has to prove their theory since they were charged with that task, and there is sufficient counter theory to doubt their explanation.
Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage. 

_Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."_

NIST's final Report on the Twin Towers mentions the piston theory to attempt to explain away the ejections: 
_The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. _

There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory. 

* The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum.* But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib.* Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib. 

* The squibs emerge from the facade *10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud* inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concrete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.

* The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. *But there was no such stack.* In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs. 

* The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. *This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory*, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors. 

* The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created under pressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower. 

9-11 Research: Squibs


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2011)

Except that if you look at a real demolition, where you see a squib you see the building collapsing. In the case of the WTC you see a squib and wait for the upper floors to get to it before that area collapses. They are not explosions.


----------



## eots (Apr 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



there are maybe  4 that clearly show the collapse


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 3, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Oh please,  I saw about a dozen different shots of it in just one of your truther videos.


----------



## eots (Apr 4, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



link please


----------



## SFC Ollie (Apr 4, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Nope, I'd bet it's already been posted by one of you truthers on this thread. If you don't know your own videos why should i teach them to you?

Besides with all the cameras from all the news stations, plus all the private cameras that were rolling in a city as big as NYC? Come on, common sense tells you there are a lot more than 4 videos of this collapse. If the truthers didn't post every little thing 50 times all over the net then we could probably find better video of the south side of 7 WTC. I have no doubt it's out there.


----------

