Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

Dan wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote in

snip



So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
structural engineering or materials science.




What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a
physicist with a PhD.


Forget it, "truth" refuses to understand that being a "physicist with
a PhD" doesn't make one qualified in the subject at hand. If you read
Jone's BYU bio he claims no training in any subject other than physics.
He is not qualified to come to the conclusions "truth" says he has.

I think he is just as qualified as TRUTH to make expert judgements on
this issue.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:54 GMT, Johnny Bravo
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:55:26 GMT, mrtravel wrote:

TRUTH wrote:

Orval Fairbairn wrote in


And -- White Star proclaimed the Titanic to be "unsinkable", too.

Okay. Where is the evidence suggesting the titanic did not sink the way
people think it did?


It sank because of bad steel.
Apparently the US government was involved in that conspiracy too.
I think Dr Jones wrote a paper.

Titanic was unsinkable, White Star Lines said so. They must have used
Thermite cutter-charges to sink it for the insurance money.

Nah m8, they used sub kilodyne yield fusion depth charges tamped with
depleted unobtainium mixed with Colmans mustard....
--
Chuck Norris and Mr.T walked into a bar. The bar was instantly
destroyed,as that level of awesome cannot be contained in one building.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:14:52 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
.net:

In article ,
on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

mrtravel wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

Wake Up! wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
info you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.




red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means nothing to
the points in Jones paper

Snort, BS.
It is one of the points in his paper !





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:13:33 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:34:28 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:04:10 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

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.

So he has no background in structural engineering ?
Nor the mechanics of matertials either I take it.

A degree in physics is just that.





Watch the video of the South Tower collapse below.



So you do not intend to discuss Dr Jones lack of training in
structural engineering or materials science.


What is there to discuss? It is already admitted. Jones' is a physicist
with a PhD.

That is nice that he has a PHD in physics.

That was not my point since he is neither an engineer nor materials scientist.
Two separate and only marginally related fields.

Since he has this PHD in physics is he qualified to say discuss oceanography ?

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:37:10 GMT,
mrtravel attempted to say .....

TRUTH wrote:

They did not jump. Many were shaken out of the Towers from the
explosions, and can be horribly viewed in the video 9/11 Eyewitness.


What if I told you there is video that clearly shows some people jumping?


He will ignore you or claim you are lying.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:49:35 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

mrtravel wrote in
. com:

TRUTH wrote:



Not to mention WTC management were business types not engineers
and
thus were not in a position to provide an educated opinion such as
that.



One of the people who said it was a WTC design engineer. (I'm pretty
sure)


Maybe he was wrong.
The scenario was not having a fully fueled 767 crash into the WTC, was
it?



If his was the only piece of evidence there was, then I would believe him
wrong. But with all the overwhelming evidence that exists...

What "overwhelming evidence" is that ?



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:47:31 GMT,
TRUTH attempted to say .....

mrtravel wrote in
m:

TRUTH wrote:

Tank Fixer wrote in
.net:


In article ,
on Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:20:47 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....


mrtravel wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
:


Wake Up! wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
info you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

#1 Thermite is NOT a cutter explosive.


red herring. Whether is is a cutter explosive or not, it means
nothing to the points in Jones paper

Are all of your false beliefs "red herrings"?
Dr Jones is NOT an expert. Why do you have so much faith in his paper?






I had said a while ago that I knew the WTC was professionally demolished
long before I even heard of Dr Jones. The evidence is so obvious, so
overwhelming, and so clear. Jones' paper just helped me understand the
science a bit more. I need not "have faith" in Jones' paper. There is
nothing in it for me to have faith of. I just looked at the verifiable
information, and used my common sense. I don't need a physics professor,
or any other professor to tell me how to examine the evidence. My common
sense is extremely keen. I need not examine it scientifically. There is
too much evidence for it all to be coincidence. It is not normal thinking
to assume it's coincidence. Sorry, coincidences like that do not happen.
They do not.

So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:48:54 GMT,
Johnny Bravo attempted to say .....


Titanic was unsinkable, White Star Lines said so. They must have used
Thermite cutter-charges to sink it for the insurance money. The lack of
lifeboats for the lower class passengers was deliberate so they would die and
not tell anyone about the big plumes of white smoke. The upper class passengers
had too much to loose if they went public so they just kept quiet due to a gag
order from White Star Lines.

Plus it was designed to be able to withstand multiple strikes by snowballs

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.

Not very charitable to house flies.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:53:39 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:


So you are approaching this from a predetermined point of view.
Just the very same thing you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of.

I would say you have the common sense of a house fly, to be charitable.


Not very charitable to house flies.

Doesn't it feel weird when you think they are watching you?

Flies are an interesting topic for r.t.a, since their eyes are wired to
their wings and they are very good fliers.