Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 08:25:07 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

"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.

Why all the evidence is in the proofs you keep posting !

And the investigation those faculty members think should happen ?
Why do I suspect they want to know how Dr Jones came to his degree in
structural engineering


This is what they're calling for:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1141667399

Jones' has a PhD in physics, so he should be qualified to determine in
the government's version of the collapses defy phsyics.


i.e. from his paper:





"Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law
of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)


Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data
to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST
team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific
procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of
political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough”
investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)


So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide
open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government."