Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

The troll comes back under the new name of "Wake Up!" and complained:

and where is the evidence showing he came to the wrong conclusion? And
where is the evidence for your conclusion? Be specific.


Here ya go:

http://tinyurl.com/nmh55


Your job is to now prove that this plan was possible by providing the
name of each conspirator.



-hh

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



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

In article ,
"Wake Up!" wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
pecked out:

"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.


How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Wake Up!" wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
pecked out:

"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.


How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.

Klingons have not been shown to do time travel, AFAIK, so there.

The Borg, on the other hand...(I wonder if Prof. Jones has explored this
one?)

Paul Nixon

mrtravel wrote in news:knSQf.38042$_S7.31872
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

There is plenty of evidence, you just choose to ignore anything/anyone
that doesn't agree with you. Remember the pilots that stated an
airliner could be flown by amateurs into the WTC. You ignored their
comments, didn't you?


Oh come onnnnnnnnn! Only an idiot would take anything mentioned from so
called "pilots" in this group seriously. Besides, a "comment" is NOT
evidence

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.

"Keith W" wrote in news:dv134f$lf1$1
:


"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.

No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding.



From Jones' paper:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)
However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus
cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.




Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the
WTC?
Yes.

As can burning office furniture, this was presen in huge quantities.
t
Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


From Jones' paper:
The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000
oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the
Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of
about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this
molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high
probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video
is consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since
thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As
some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip
above, note that the white-hot interior is exposed.) The reader may wish
to compare the dripping molten metal observed on the corner of the South
Tower just before its collapse with the dripping molten metal from known
thermite reactions: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .





Were
those tree items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able totake 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!!

I am not the person pushing the absurd government conspiracy theory.

Keith




I encourage you to look into this deeper. Here's some interesting
information. (Scroll down for 115 ommissions in the government reports):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

"Keith W" wrote in news:dv13f4$g3v$1
:


"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping
from
the
South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54740145858863
&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
temperature of approximately 1000 oC,

Problem is structural steel has a melting point of around 1400 deg C
so whatever it was it was NOT molten steel.

Keith





It could have cooled a bit by that time

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."

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:34:45 GMT,
Orval Fairbairn attempted to say .....

In article ,
"Wake Up!" wet his bed, picked his nose, drooled and
pecked out:

"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.


How do we know that it really wasn't Klingons, traveling back in time,
using their disrupter weapons to destroy WTC #1, #2 and #7? All those
straw men that the "9/11 'truth' movement" so disingenuously proposes
have about the same credibility as the Klingon notion.


Now that you mention it Dr Jones does look vaguely Klingon.
Without the forehead ridges of course..

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