Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:59:45 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

The amusing thing about that is that "TRUTH" presented a "paper" from a
"Finnish military expert" who claimed that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
"TRUTH" jumped on it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver. What
"TRUTH" didn't do was see exactly what this "miltiary expert" claimed as the
explosive in other pages on his site; tiny thermonuclear bombs, possibly ignited
by anti-matter.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:59:45 -0700, "khobar" wrote:


Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon


The amusing thing about that is that "TRUTH" presented a "paper" from a
"Finnish military expert" who claimed that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
"TRUTH" jumped on it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver. What
"TRUTH" didn't do was see exactly what this "miltiary expert" claimed as the
explosive in other pages on his site; tiny thermonuclear bombs, possibly ignited
by anti-matter.


TRUTH has a habit of NOT reading the "proof" he posts.
Remember the article that indicated the "no plane" incident at the
Pentagon? It was from the "Truth" people, but claimed the "no plane"
stuff was a fraud to make the them look like crazy people, since all
evidence indicates there was a plane. TRUTH then back out saying he was
only trying to present different points of view on the government
conspiracy. Previously he was saying this was one "proof" of his view.

"khobar" wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in
news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
har har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon





Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Wake Up! wrote:



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these are
not your beliefs.


Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Cite? Prior reviews of the same "evidence" have caused his peers to
regard him as "misinformed". Did new "evidence" come to light?

mrtravel wrote in
. com:

Wake Up! wrote:



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
are not your beliefs.



There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

Jones' paper is a hypothesis. See here if not familiar:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

The evidence he shows suggests controlled demolitions. The purpose of his
paper is to call for a new investigation.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1141667399





Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters
are growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22
seminar, he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new
investigation.

Cite? Prior reviews of the same "evidence" have caused his peers to
regard him as "misinformed". Did new "evidence" come to light?






From his paper:



11. Faculty at WTC Review Support Investigation



I presented my objections to the “official” theory at a seminar at BYU on
September 22, 2005, to about sixty people. I also showed evidence and
scientific arguments for the controlled demolition theory. In attendance
were faculty from Physics, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering,
Electrical Engineering, Psychology, Geology, and Mathematics – and perhaps
other departments as I did not recognize all of the people present. A
local university and college were represented (BYU and Utah Valley State
College).



The discussion was vigorous and lasted nearly two hours. It ended only
when a university class needed the room. After presenting the material
summarized here, including actually looking at and discussing the collapses
of WTC 7 and the Towers, only one attendee disagreed (by hand-vote) that
further investigation of the WTC collapses was called for. The next day,
the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now
agreed that more investigation was needed. He joined the others in hoping
that the 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST
plus others held by the FBI would be released for independent scrutiny;
photos largely from private photographers (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Therefore,
I along with others call for the release of these data to a cross-
disciplinary, preferably international team of scientists and engineers.

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
mrtravel wrote in
. com:

Wake Up! wrote:



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
are not your beliefs.



There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

At least you admit that there is no evidence to support Jones. Sheesh, what
a waste of bandwidth.

Paul Nixon

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:39:26 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.

Jones' paper is a hypothesis. See here if not familiar:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

The evidence he shows suggests controlled demolitions. The purpose of his
paper is to call for a new investigation.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1141667399

So lets sum this up, shall we?

Jones is calling for a new investigation, not on the basis of any concrete
evidence, but entirely on his dislike of the original investigation.

What makes Jones think he's entitled to use my money to fund his own private
investigation?

Wake Up! wrote:

mrtravel wrote in
. com:


Wake Up! wrote:



Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that?

Where is the evidence that it was thermite?
You posted a link to someone who claimed it was nuclear.
Are you going to claim you didn't read that either?
You have a habit of posting links as "proof" and then claiming these
are not your beliefs.




There is NO concrete evidence (at this time) that it was thermite.


Then isn't the subject line YOU selected NOT very accurate?

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

"khobar" wrote in news:30NQf.421$PE.346@fed1read05:

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in
news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
har har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way
you deniers aren't able to take everything into context, and instead
give silly reasons for each and every piece of information, so you
can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes.
Can a nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
Were these three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon





Okay. Where's the evidence supporting that? Let's not forget that
hundreds of people (many professors) read his paper. His supporters are
growing, not shrinking. And based of his evidence at his Sept 22 seminar,
he convinced 60 faculty members that there should be a new investigation.

Faculty qualified to critique his scientific claims from such diverse fields
as psychology, psychiatry, economics, history, literature and politics.

Feel free to give me the name of ONE of the Physicists or Civil Engineers from
BYU that he has convinced.