In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:48:43 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....



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.

Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?


Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.

But you claim it was present above ?
Which is it ?
Fact or theory ?




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!!

It is called science.
Examine the facts and come to conclusions.

You might try it some time


You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

I have read through "Dr" Jones paper.
He makes several leaps of imagination to put his theory together.
Dr Jones is imprecise in his use of terminology.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

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