Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire induced"
collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil puncturing a
screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact area of the South
Tower and suggested nothing major.

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


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.

I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway since
a single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or any
other aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed to
withstand a 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time the
requirement was made.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:

Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
relavent. Thank you.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Why? Everytime someone disputes something, you don't believe them.

Also, his own peers don't agree with them, why go much further?


PS You should consider joining ST911. A structural engineer on their
panel would be very helpful

It makes sense that you admit they aren't qualified, and we know that
Dr. Jones isn't.

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?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:40:31 -0600, Dan wrote:

The only info I have is the power down in the South Tower:
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12...interview.html


In other words you can't answer my questions. A "power down" does not
indicate anything sinister. Are you trying to tell us "they" did a few
week's work in less that 24 hours?

Why not, he claims the NYFD did a week's work in less than 7 hours inside a
building that was burning out of control (WTC 7) and for an encore the NYPD also
knows all about it but not one individual has come forward to protest the
murders of their friends, family members and co-workers simply because they were
ordered not to say anything.

He's so disconnected from reality that he'll believe anything that he can even
remotely use to support his theory and discard anything which disagrees with it,
no matter how much evidence piles up against him.

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.

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

"Dan" wrote in message
news:zU7Sf.62063$Ug4.53088@dukeread12...


I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway since a
single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or any other
aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed to withstand a
767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time the requirement was
made.


The consulting engineer on the WTC has stated that while
the building was designed to withstand an aircraft strike the
actual event was much more energetic than expected.

The scenario was impact by a 707 on a landing approach
to a New York airport with a low fuel load at a speed of
around 200 knots. What actually happened was a impact by
larger aircraft at more than double that speed with an almost
full fuel load.

As KE rises as a square of velocity this means the impact was
between 4 and 8 times the designed load

The building still withstood the blow but what it couldnt
stand was the subsequent fire which the original scenario
did NOT include.

Keith

Dan wrote in news:zU7Sf.62063$Ug4.53088@dukeread12:

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
TRUTH wrote:


Perhaps to learn clues to prevent a complete, freefall "fire
induced" collapse from happening again, especially since:

It never happened before, but on 9/11 it happened three times. An
executive in the WTC Management said in his opinion the Towers could
withstand multiple 707 impacts, and compared it to a pencil
puncturing a screen netting. Firefighters made it up to the impact
area of the South Tower and suggested nothing major.

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


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)





I know WTC was designed to withstand a fully fueled and loaded 707
strike, but multiples? I dunno, I doubt it. It's irrelevant anyway
since a single 767 strike is different than multiple strikes by 707 or
any other aircraft. The fact remains the buildings were not designed
to withstand a 767 strike simply because 767 didn't exist at the time
the requirement was made.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Whether that's true or not, an argument cannot be made in that manner.

In article ,
says...
TRUTH wrote:

Okay, in that case, kindly explain Jones' 17 points. To discredit his
claims, all 17 points much be addressed and explained why they are not
relavent. Thank you.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Why? Everytime someone disputes something, you don't believe them.

Human nature. People like TRUTH just love to believe the unbelievable.

There are two men walking down the street in town. One is in a business
suit, the other is dressed like a clown and juggling 8 balls. Who'er
gonna watch???

--
Duncan

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?