If It's Bad.....Jews Did It

[ChrisL]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• 
  
  
  • Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

Blogs. Lol.

 

[eots]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• 
  
  
  • Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

I don't believe any of your experts were there and their theories are no more than theory.

NIST was not there so you make no sense

 

[eots]

I have read it through many times...I doubt very much you have..but you made a claim of scientist debunking theories but this is a blog by someone with no credentials just like PM

They are debunked by legitimate scientists, physicists, etc.

So you keep saying but you have yet to present any

It's all in the link. Here, I'll post another one for you. Now, keep in mind, these are not YouTube videos, so I hope you can understand the material presented.

NOVA World Trade Center Collapse

of course it is a youtube video you ninny

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

 

[Hossfly]

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

• 
  
  
  • Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives.

I don't believe any of your experts were there and their theories are no more than theory.

NIST was not there so you make no sense

Not to you. There were no explosives.

 

[ChrisL]

They are debunked by legitimate scientists, physicists, etc.

So you keep saying but you have yet to present any

It's all in the link. Here, I'll post another one for you. Now, keep in mind, these are not YouTube videos, so I hope you can understand the material presented.

NOVA World Trade Center Collapse

of course it is a youtube video you ninny

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

 

[eots]

So you keep saying but you have yet to present any

It's all in the link. Here, I'll post another one for you. Now, keep in mind, these are not YouTube videos, so I hope you can understand the material presented.

NOVA World Trade Center Collapse

of course it is a youtube video you ninny

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link that are all but meaningless and not independent peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report so why do pretend they are ? it is You who should be embarrassed, really. Lol..

 

[ChrisL]

It's all in the link. Here, I'll post another one for you. Now, keep in mind, these are not YouTube videos, so I hope you can understand the material presented.

NOVA World Trade Center Collapse

of course it is a youtube video you ninny

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link that are all but meaningless and not independent peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report so why do pretend they are ? it is You who should be embarrassed, really. Lol..

No, you should be embarrassed. Your claims have been debunked. Of course, no one expects you to listen to facts because you CTs are all nuts. It doesn't matter if it's put right in front of your face. You are too ignorant to acknowledge the true facts.

 

[eots]

of course it is a youtube video you ninny

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link that are all but meaningless and not independent peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report so why do pretend they are ? it is You who should be embarrassed, really. Lol..

No, you should be embarrassed. Your claims have been debunked. Of course, no one expects you to listen to facts because you CTs are all nuts. It doesn't matter if it's put right in front of your face. You are too ignorant to acknowledge the true facts.

you are completely ignorant on the topic you have never read the NIST report .you have never fact checked anything and you have done nothing more than glance over the sorry ass debwunker blog you posted ..you can not fool me

 

[ChrisL]

No, it is not a YouTube video. You are apparently the ninny.

Here is an excerpt from the link, entitled TRANSCRIPT. Lol.

SECTION 1: THE INVESTIGATION
SHAYM SUNDER: I'm Shyam Sunder. I am the lead investigator for the World Trade Center investigation that was conducted by the National Institute of Standards in Technology.

In many typical investigations, you have a partially collapsed building standing there that can be looked at by engineers.

In the case of the World Trade Center towers, the buildings had collapsed. And also there was an immediate need for search and rescue of people who might have been buried under the rubble. So there was also a need to clear the site as quickly as possible. It's very unusual that the evidence is so completely scattered, and that made our investigation a lot more complicated.

We realized that we had to model the complete aircraft impact. We had to model the evolution of the fires over the next hour, or hour and half. We had to model how the steel weakened as a result of the high temperatures. And lastly, we had to model the progression of failures-- local failures in the structure, which then led to the overall initiation of collapse. Each of these stages had very sophisticated models that were validated using the photographic evidence we have, validated using laboratory experiments that we conducted. And validated, ultimately, based on how the buildings actually collapsed using videos.

SECTION 2: IMPACT
Through a fairly sophisticated analysis of the video information, we were able to determine the airplane speed, direction of the airplane, and the orientation of the airplane as each of the airplanes impacted each of the buildings.

The north tower was hit at 8:46 by a 767-200 extended range airplane, between the 93rd and the 99th floor. The airplane was flying at about 550 miles an hour, with a total weight of somewhere on the order of 283,000 pounds.

The second building to be hit, which was hit 16 minutes later, was hit on the south face of the south tower. Again by a 767-200 extended range airplane, but this time between floors 77 and 85.

And one of the questions that comes out from looking at this information is how is it here we have two seemingly similar buildings—they were called Twin Towers—and they were hit by nearly identical airplane, but how come one building lasted for 102 minutes, the other building lasted for 56 minutes, which is nearly a factor of two.

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link that are all but meaningless and not independent peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report so why do pretend they are ? it is You who should be embarrassed, really. Lol..

No, you should be embarrassed. Your claims have been debunked. Of course, no one expects you to listen to facts because you CTs are all nuts. It doesn't matter if it's put right in front of your face. You are too ignorant to acknowledge the true facts.

you are completely ignorant on the topic you have never read the NIST report .you have never fact checked anything and you have nothing more than glance over the sorry ass debwunker blog you posted ..you can not fool me

I've read it many times, along with many other documents that make perfect sense in debunking ALL of your claims. You just don't want to acknowledge the truth and prefer to live in your paranoid fantasy world. THAT is the bottom line here and THAT is your personal problem. Not many support your silliness because all of your theories have been DEBUNKED.

 

[eots]

what are you talking about?..you posted a link to Nova.. now you post a summary of the NIST report..where are your Independent scientist and peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report you claimed ?

There are a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link I provided to you. I can't help it if you can't read or comprehend. That's your problem and explains why you would buy into conspiracy theories the way you do. You should be embarrassed, really. Lol.

a WHOLE BUNCH of different links within the link that are all but meaningless and not independent peer reviewed papers supporting the NIST report so why do pretend they are ? it is You who should be embarrassed, really. Lol..

No, you should be embarrassed. Your claims have been debunked. Of course, no one expects you to listen to facts because you CTs are all nuts. It doesn't matter if it's put right in front of your face. You are too ignorant to acknowledge the true facts.

you are completely ignorant on the topic you have never read the NIST report .you have never fact checked anything and you have nothing more than glance over the sorry ass debwunker blog you posted ..you can not fool me

I've read it many times, along with many other documents that make perfect sense in debunking ALL of your claims. You just don't want to acknowledge the truth and prefer to live in your paranoid fantasy world. THAT is the bottom line here and THAT is your personal problem. Not many support your silliness because all of your theories have been DEBUNKED.

explain the of the initiation wtc7 collapse scenario

 

[Phoenall]

That would be yourself. You and your fellow delusional conspiracy theorists.

strawman is all you have you could not support your position with facts if your life depended on it

I don't think you know what a FACT is. YOU are a conspiracy theorist and all of your so-called "evidence" has already been debunked many times.

What theory has been debunked and by who exactly ?

I debunked the 9/11 theory by using my training in metallurgy and common sense. Do you know how long it takes to remove the outer covering of concrete, cut through the support beams, attach explosives, reconcrete the walls and then make good the visible damage. All without the people on the floors seeing this take place, or the public spilling the beans to the press.

What does your metallurgy tell you about molten metal

What metal, what temperature and what chemical analysis ?

 

[aris2chat]

strawman is all you have you could not support your position with facts if your life depended on it

I don't think you know what a FACT is. YOU are a conspiracy theorist and all of your so-called "evidence" has already been debunked many times.

What theory has been debunked and by who exactly ?

I debunked the 9/11 theory by using my training in metallurgy and common sense. Do you know how long it takes to remove the outer covering of concrete, cut through the support beams, attach explosives, reconcrete the walls and then make good the visible damage. All without the people on the floors seeing this take place, or the public spilling the beans to the press.

What does your metallurgy tell you about molten metal

What metal, what temperature and what chemical analysis ?

temperature did not have to be hot enough to melt metal, only enough to weaken it. Much lower threshold

 

[Phoenall]

Hardly an expert as she is a geneticist and not an explosives expert. So strike the theory as being some daft bats 5 minutes of fame.

she has great understanding of scientific method
YouTube

Have you ever seen an explosives expert bring a building straight down, the timing on the explosions need to be exact to the microsecond. Impossible to achieve with the det cord available today as two pieces from the same drum the same length will differ by a few microseconds. The explosions were caused by the valence bonds in the steel beams giving way and causing the building to implode around its central core. Heat steel to 1000 c and it starts to alter chemically, the carbon moves away from the heat source while the ferrite moves towards the heat source. This makes the steel turn into first wrought iron and then cast iron, and as everyone knows cast iron is very weak when struck

 

[ChrisL]

Hardly an expert as she is a geneticist and not an explosives expert. So strike the theory as being some daft bats 5 minutes of fame.

she has great understanding of scientific method
YouTube

Have you ever seen an explosives expert bring a building straight down, the timing on the explosions need to be exact to the microsecond. Impossible to achieve with the det cord available today as two pieces from the same drum the same length will differ by a few microseconds. The explosions were caused by the valence bonds in the steel beams giving way and causing the building to implode around its central core. Heat steel to 1000 c and it starts to alter chemically, the carbon moves away from the heat source while the ferrite moves towards the heat source. This makes the steel turn into first wrought iron and then cast iron, and as everyone knows cast iron is very weak when struck

He won't listen. You are wasting your time. They enjoy this. They WANT to believe that it was the government or whatever crazy thing they believe.

 

[eots]

Hardly an expert as she is a geneticist and not an explosives expert. So strike the theory as being some daft bats 5 minutes of fame.

she has great understanding of scientific method
YouTube

Have you ever seen an explosives expert bring a building straight down, the timing on the explosions need to be exact to the microsecond. Impossible to achieve with the det cord available today as two pieces from the same drum the same length will differ by a few microseconds. The explosions were caused by the valence bonds in the steel beams giving way and causing the building to implode around its central core. Heat steel to 1000 c and it starts to alter chemically, the carbon moves away from the heat source while the ferrite moves towards the heat source. This makes the steel turn into first wrought iron and then cast iron, and as everyone knows cast iron is very weak when struck

He won't listen. You are wasting your time. They enjoy this. They WANT to believe that it was the government or whatever crazy thing they believe.

you are not qualified to discuss the subject you do not even know the official story let alone the flaws contained in it

 

[eots]

Hardly an expert as she is a geneticist and not an explosives expert. So strike the theory as being some daft bats 5 minutes of fame.

she has great understanding of scientific method
YouTube

Have you ever seen an explosives expert bring a building straight down, the timing on the explosions need to be exact to the microsecond. Impossible to achieve with the det cord available today as two pieces from the same drum the same length will differ by a few microseconds. The explosions were caused by the valence bonds in the steel beams giving way and causing the building to implode around its central core. Heat steel to 1000 c and it starts to alter chemically, the carbon moves away from the heat source while the ferrite moves towards the heat source. This makes the steel turn into first wrought iron and then cast iron, and as everyone knows cast iron is very weak when struck

NISTs forensic testing of wtc steel showed no signs of the temperatures sufficient to weaken steel

 

[eots]

Although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have
Page 2 of Article Former Chief of NIST s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation OpEdNews

 

[SAYIT]

NISTs forensic testing of wtc steel showed no signs of the temperatures sufficient to weaken steel

That's a typical 9/11 CT lie necessitated by the fact that the truth just doesn't support their CT silliness.

 

[eots]

NISTs forensic testing of wtc steel showed no signs of the temperatures sufficient to weaken steel

That's a typical 9/11 CT lie necessitated by the fact that the truth just doesn't support their CT silliness.

It as quote is from the former NIST CHIEF FIRE INVESTIGATOR..you are calling him a typical liar /CT ?...on what basis

 

[Phoenall]

Hardly an expert as she is a geneticist and not an explosives expert. So strike the theory as being some daft bats 5 minutes of fame.

she has great understanding of scientific method
YouTube

Have you ever seen an explosives expert bring a building straight down, the timing on the explosions need to be exact to the microsecond. Impossible to achieve with the det cord available today as two pieces from the same drum the same length will differ by a few microseconds. The explosions were caused by the valence bonds in the steel beams giving way and causing the building to implode around its central core. Heat steel to 1000 c and it starts to alter chemically, the carbon moves away from the heat source while the ferrite moves towards the heat source. This makes the steel turn into first wrought iron and then cast iron, and as everyone knows cast iron is very weak when struck

He won't listen. You are wasting your time. They enjoy this. They WANT to believe that it was the government or whatever crazy thing they believe.

you are not qualified to discuss the subject you do not even know the official story let alone the flaws contained in it

I am and take it from me steel can explode of its own accord when subjected to heat or cold