West Plains, MO

9/9/2015 9:48:40 PM
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: The same old ignorant and vapid anti-Semitic rant. I'm not interested in your hate-filled diatribes. If this is true, the fact that you keep engaging her might lend credibility to her claim of you being a shill Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
9/9/2015 9:53:36 PM	West Plains, MO
alls_fair Thorlákshöfn Iceland 95, joined May. 2011	I have never seen anyone work so hard to prove a narrative believable even when the preponderance of fact is against them...
9/9/2015 10:04:08 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	But fine work ethic, and great at staying on message. I'd recommend him for a raise
9/9/2015 10:18:49 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: If this is true, the fact that you keep engaging her might lend credibility to her claim of you being a shill How does that follow? That doesn't make sense. I respond to her remember.
9/9/2015 10:21:48 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from alls_fair: I have never seen anyone work so hard to prove a narrative believable even when the preponderance of fact is against them... Yes, the usual truth silliness. Try science sometime, it's actually quite interesting. Do you tacitly support the truther argument on here? Really? There is no logic or evidence on their side so why do you support it? Is it just your hate of the government? I use reason and logic, not emotion. So if you can address the evidence I produced it would be nice. Your ad homs mean nothing to anyone with a brain.
9/9/2015 10:26:48 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	And the evidence has been effectively buried by persiflage once again. Again: A jet fuel fire weakens a steel beam and it loses its structural integrity: https://youtu.be/CGsOkT__M7Y The uncropped footage of the molten material flowing out of the WTC just before the collapse: https://youtu.be/TJJPYTVjxug This footage is usually cropped by 9/11 truth to 'cut out' the fire flare-up prior to the material flowing out. This area of the building is where much of the aircraft wreckage would have come to rest, therefore, it can be deduced that this could be anything from aluminium containing impurities, to copper etc. Anyone care to address the actual evidence instead of employing idiotic ad homs? [Edited 9/9/2015 10:27:37 PM ]
9/9/2015 10:52:07 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from srv63: By the way, i still see all 3 1/2 government paid whres side tracking the steel column pictured at ground zero with the obvious 45 degree cut. CLEAR INDISPUTABLE PROOF of controlled demolition. How can it be indisputable proof if it was cut after the fact as the sources note? You need to demonstrate it was cut beforehand or your argument is worthless. Of course, you won't do any of that because you never do. You just make stupid claims and never back them up. Would any of you government paid whres like me to post that huge steel column (found at ground zero) right beside a photo of a steel support beam that a demolition team cuts at a 45 degree angle to demolish a building? Go ahead. It won't prove anything except that the cuts were made with similar equipment and techniques. Any of you paid wh*res got testimony from any reputable cleanup crews as to why they would cut ANY super heavy columns at a 45 degree angle during the cleanup of debris? Inquiring minds sure want to know Reversing the burden of proof, and the answer is obvious to those with a brain. You have to demonstrate that it was cut by a demolition team and you can't. Thus, your stupid argument is over. You're not very good at this form of debate are you? No matter, few on here are. I await your proof that it was cut by a demolition team. Please use quotes from texts, testimony and pics of the cut being made prior to the collapse. Until then, you're just bullshitting. [Edited 9/9/2015 10:53:20 PM ]
9/9/2015 11:44:27 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: If this is true, the fact that you keep engaging her might lend credibility to her claim of you being a shill I get your point now. You will note I only engage her on the points and where she vilifies me. I delete and ignore her anti-Semitic diatribes in my responses. That clarifies my position, but it still does not follow that because I engage her, I must be a shill. There is no logic behind such an assumption and you are better than that.
9/10/2015 12:29:02 AM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from srv63: By the way, i still see all 3 1/2 government paid whres side tracking the steel column pictured at ground zero with the obvious 45 degree cut. CLEAR INDISPUTABLE PROOF of controlled demolition. Would any of you government paid whres like me to post that huge steel column (found at ground zero) right beside a photo of a steel support beam that a demolition team cuts at a 45 degree angle to demolish a building? Any of you paid wh*res got testimony from any reputable cleanup crews as to why they would cut ANY super heavy columns at a 45 degree angle during the cleanup of debris? Inquiring minds sure want to know Hey Nitwit! It's all here and I'm sure you've been shown this before: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm If you don't believe it, disprove it. I know you can't and won't. It's that simple. Yes, you'll bray and whine for pages, but we both know it will amount to nothing.
9/10/2015 12:38:16 AM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Class why do you choose to spend time straighting us idiots out?
9/10/2015 12:56:58 AM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Class why do you choose to spend time straighting us idiots out? You're not an idiot. I became interested in 9/11 over 10 years ago, and I too wanted questions answered, so I went looking. I knew at the time it was Al-Qaeda because they had been escalating their campaign against the US. I also knew the buildings would probably collapse owing to the amount of damage made by the impacts and the subsequent fires. I joined many sites only to discuss the subject and to learn about the science, as it fascinates me. Now, I've much behind me and know the fallacious and specious nature of many of the claims made by the scammers behind 9/11 truth. What I did NOT do was to jump to irrational conclusions and follow the herd chanting inaccurate memes and slogans. Many of the memes are products of ignorance of the subject and nothing more. Can you answer this question: I'm interested in the subject (like you and others), but I don't share the populist view, so how does that make me a shill? Can you explain the reasoning behind that because I can't see any logic in the assumption what so ever? Bullshit from SRV to follow...
9/10/2015 1:11:43 AM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Class why do you choose to spend time straighting us idiots out? Do you only agree with the truthers on here because they support your position? Because I can't see how a man of your intellect could support such poorly debated and unsubstantiated claims as proffered here by the adherents of 9/11 truth. It doesn't make sense that you would buy into some of these ridiculous claims. No planes??? Nukes??? Space Breams??? Flying orbs??? Controlled demolition is whacky enough, but these stories just induce head shaking followed by a 'sigh'. Rant from SRV to follow.... [Edited 9/10/2015 1:14:24 AM ]
9/10/2015 1:15:08 AM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: You're not an idiot. I became interested in 9/11 over 10 years ago, and I too wanted questions answered, so I went looking. I knew at the time it was Al-Qaeda because they had been escalating their campaign against the US. I also knew the buildings would probably collapse owing to the amount of damage made by the impacts and the subsequent fires. I joined many sites only to discuss the subject and to learn about the science, as it fascinates me. Now, I've much behind me and know the fallacious and specious nature of many of the claims made by the scammers behind 9/11 truth. What I did NOT do was to jump to irrational conclusions and follow the herd chanting inaccurate memes and slogans. Many of the memes are products of ignorance of the subject and nothing more. Can you answer this question: I'm interested in the subject (like you and others), but I don't share the populist view, so how does that make me a shill? Can you explain the reasoning behind that because I can't see any logic in the assumption what so ever? Bullshit from SRV to follow... That's wonderful walk through of your understanding of 911, but why do you choose to debunk people's false beliefs? What harm is it to let idiots believe lies? Do you think these idiots are dangerous to society? My purpose for posting is to get people to think for themselves. Too often I inject my conclusions, but isn't my intended purpose, but sometimes I don't stay focused. If you, or anyone else, can find me a sponsor to pay me to do this, please forward their contact info. No big money concerns are interested in the masses properly processing reality
9/10/2015 1:24:02 AM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: That's wonderful walk through of your understanding of 911, but why do you choose to debunk people's false beliefs? What harm is it to let idiots believe lies? Do you think these idiots are dangerous to society? Yes, in a way. I object to the manner in which they mock the dead and libel the innocent. I knew someone lost in the attack and that is all I'll say about that individual. My purpose for posting is to get people to think for themselves. I try to promote critical thinking as well, and that is probably the most common theme in my posts. Many just regurgitate what someone else said without further investigation. I like to check the sources, and cross reference using critical thinking and logic to arrive at a position. Too often I inject my conclusions, but isn't my intended purpose, but sometimes I don't stay focused. Actually, recent exchanges between us have demonstrated to me that I have misjudged you in the past or misinterpreted your intent. If so, my apologies. If you, or anyone else, can find me a sponsor to pay me to do this, please forward their contact info. No big money concerns are interested in the masses properly processing reality I'm sorry, but I wouldn't know where to begin, nor would I want to be a shill, because that would contract one to a subject and a time slot. No, I just don't need that hassle, or the money. Anyway, my shift is over LOLOL. No, it's just time to do other things. Catch you later naprinciple. [Edited 9/10/2015 1:27:12 AM ]
9/10/2015 1:34:43 AM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Class, I don't see how questioning what we're told about 911 is an insult to victims or their families. In fact, I'd posit the opposite is true. Blindly believing the government's narrative is a perfect recipe for ensuring the guilty parties get away with their heinous crimes. I'm a big picture guy, and I think in abstract concepts. I can't see any benefit/motive for the Islamist narrative, but I see how 911 justified domestic stripping of rights and furthered imperialist aims aboard.
9/10/2015 1:48:56 AM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: Do you only agree with the truthers on here because they support your position? Because I can't see how a man of your intellect could support such poorly debated and unsubstantiated claims as proffered here by the adherents of 9/11 truth. It doesn't make sense that you would buy into some of these ridiculous claims. No planes??? Nukes??? Space Breams??? Flying orbs??? Controlled demolition is whacky enough, but these stories just induce head shaking followed by a 'sigh'. Rant from SRV to follow.... I don't pretend to know what all happened on 911Though I do strongly believe some sort of demolition took place. My position is the government is lying to us about countless aspects of 911, and I properly place the onus on them to form a narrative that fits the known facts. I'm quite sure some people are paid to spread false theories, in an attempt to discredit the entire truther movement. Techniques like that work because most people can't muster any intellectual self defense. I have a friend, perhaps my best friend, who I have known for 34 years. He absolutely respects my intelligence in nearly every regard, except 911. Somehow he believes me to be rational, thoroughly researched, and honest in everything else, but I'm a gullible idiot when it comes to this topic.
9/10/2015 6:40:02 AM	West Plains, MO
srv63 Baytown, TX 52, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from class5: That spot is where the wreckage landed according to the Purdue simulation. Can't you fking read? Fact: Aluminium when melted is NOT always silver. You should look up stuff before you run your idiot mouth. Prove me wrong Fkstain. Your empty headed blather means nothing to me. Prove it or shut your mouth Dckhead. I guess if purdue told you to snap your fingers twice next time you take a shit, that you will be the next lotto winner, your dumb a* would do it huh? Before you start telling me about melting metals, you best look up your facts, you waste of jizzm. I notice how you steer wayyyy clear of the 45 degree cut column. What's wrong coward, worried about getting your whre a* handed to you?
9/10/2015 6:47:55 AM	West Plains, MO
srv63 Baytown, TX 52, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from class5: Idiotic speculation with no foundation. Please try to respond with statements that are worth reading. Look retard, even the broadcasters of the news on the scene, ALL agreed that the fires were almost out in both towers right before collapsing. Go watch the footage again dumb douche before calling anyone a liar. This time clean the shit out of your ears. The video that YOU provided the link to CLEARLY SHOWS intense heat around the corner supporting column but yet the other fires in the building are burning out. Are you so damn retarded your going to argue with LIVE VIDEO?
9/10/2015 7:04:29 AM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Fun facts from NIST: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view. Later on the same page: 22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. You really can't make this shit up
9/10/2015 12:01:34 PM	West Plains, MO
funwithmusic Chapel Hill, NC 60, joined Feb. 2007	ANONYMOUS - FEMA and Martial Law [[[Guaranteed to BLOW Your Mind!!!]]] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ07CINbFoE GEORGE CARLIN IS BRILLIANT IN THIS....I THINK HE WAS MURDERED ... IN THE VIDEO..THEY SHOW YOU THE WEAPON THEY SUSPECT WAS USED TO KILL CARLIN..AND MANY OTHERS....leaving no evidence..
9/10/2015 1:48:01 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	NA I have a friend, perhaps my best friend, who I have known for 34 years. He absolutely respects my intelligence in nearly every regard, except 911. Somehow he believes me to be rational, thoroughly researched, and honest in everything else, but I'm a gullible idiot when it comes to this topic ========================================================== Your friend is an idiot then. Why he would believe the 19 Arab fairytale tells me he has done zero research not only about 9-11, but about the Maine, JFK, Waco, Oklahoma City, USS Liberty, Vietnam boondoggle war, Warren Report, Vince Foster phony suicide, ect.ect. You can sure tell your friend that 57 Channels think he is an idiot or close minded or most likely a " coward " who has to live in Peter Pan land of he will cry all night long and too scared to face " REALITY "
9/10/2015 2:03:31 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	NA NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. ====================================================================================== Goodness........NIST has lied about everything else in their crooked report, but failed to lie about this important aspect????? Foghorn Leghorn : I , I , I say there boy....I believe NIST got a phone call from D*ck Cheney or Dov Zakheim and were told to say that they failed to test for any residue simply because the perps needed a real good belly laugh. Why the heck else wouldn't NIST lie and say they tested for residue??????? I mean.......what the heck is another lie on top of countless other lies. Their laughing at us.......all the way to the bank
9/10/2015 5:02:58 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from srv63: I guess if purdue told you to snap your fingers twice next time you take a shit, that you will be the next lotto winner, your dumb a** would do it huh? Before you start telling me about melting metals, you best look up your facts, you waste of jizzm. So, you don't have anything of value to add to your earlier lie. I knew that. I notice how you steer wayyyy clear of the 45 degree cut column. What's wrong coward, worried about getting your whre a* handed to you? I noticed you ignored the post on the subject. Why are you so foolish? Listen D*ckhead, your argument about the 45 degree cut is stupid. You haven't proved it wasn't made by the first responders as cited. I won't bother with it until you actually provide some evidence for your idiotic claim.
9/10/2015 5:03:49 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from 57channels: NA I have a friend, perhaps my best friend, who I have known for 34 years. He absolutely respects my intelligence in nearly every regard, except 911. Somehow he believes me to be rational, thoroughly researched, and honest in everything else, but I'm a gullible idiot when it comes to this topic ========================================================== Your friend is an idiot then. Why he would believe the 19 Arab fairytale tells me he has done zero research not only about 9-11, but about the Maine, JFK, Waco, Oklahoma City, USS Liberty, Vietnam boondoggle war, Warren Report, Vince Foster phony suicide, ect.ect. You can sure tell your friend that 57 Channels think he is an idiot or close minded or most likely a " coward " who has to live in Peter Pan land of he will cry all night long and too scared to face " REALITY " I believe his ego is too invested in the narrative to ever admit he's been fooled.
9/10/2015 5:08:08 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: I don't pretend to know what all happened on 911Though I do strongly believe some sort of demolition took place. However, there is no evidence to support a belief in CD. My position is the government is lying to us about countless aspects of 911, and I properly place the onus on them to form a narrative that fits the known facts. I feel they have supplied the narrative owing to the evidence. I'm quite sure some people are paid to spread false theories, in an attempt to discredit the entire truther movement. Perhaps, there is no evidence to support such a contention apart from a hoaxed article circulated on CT sites. I also believe that 9/11 truth infiltrates boards to spread their disease. Techniques like that work because most people can't muster any intellectual self defense. They simply lack the information. I have a friend, perhaps my best friend, who I have known for 34 years. He absolutely respects my intelligence in nearly every regard, except 911. Somehow he believes me to be rational, thoroughly researched, and honest in everything else, but I'm a gullible idiot when it comes to this topic. Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. I won't make such a judgement, as I believe your have formulated your stance based on the information you've accessed. I have developed my opinion based upon the scientific and anecdotal material I've read.
9/10/2015 5:10:59 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from srv63: Look retard, even the broadcasters of the news on the scene, ALL agreed that the fires were almost out in both towers right before collapsing. Go watch the footage again dumb douche before calling anyone a liar. This time clean the shit out of your ears. I did and you are telling lies. Watch this whole video and get back to me with your latest batch of lies. https://youtu.be/eEwSHkQvTI8 The video that YOU provided the link to CLEARLY SHOWS intense heat around the corner supporting column but yet the other fires in the building are burning out. Are you so damn retarded your going to argue with LIVE VIDEO? Shut up fool and watch the video.
9/10/2015 5:16:24 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Fun facts from NIST: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view. Later on the same page: 22. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. You really can't make this shit up Thermite is not an explosive and not a reasonable explanation. 9/11 truth only chose thermite after the videos did not produce evidence for conventional explosives. They do not understand that it is not a logical nor practical choice for CD. The NIST didn't need to check for residue of explosive compounds, as there was no evidence to suggest the need. There was no barotrauma on the bodies, there was no evidence of the Munroe effect upon any of the steel; no Det cord, no RF screening etc. The NIST modelled for explosives and they couldn't replicate the collapse using the models.
9/10/2015 5:17:14 PM	West Plains, MO
longbobby Lufkin, TX 54, joined Aug. 2010	NETANYAHU: CHICKENSHIT OR SHITHEAD? That’s not egg on his face …
9/10/2015 5:19:31 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	A noted member of the truth movement distances himself from the Thermite debate: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are heavily promoting the theory that “explosive nanothermite” was used to bring down the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, and that microscopic chips of a fused compound containing unignited nanothermite were found in the World Trade Center dust. This discovery is now considered a “smoking gun” by most members of the 9/11 Truth community, even though a good many serious researchers and 9/11 activists remain unconvinced. Let’s take a look at what is supposed to be the current best evidence in the controlled-demolition theory of the World Trade Center’s tallest buildings. Steven Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11 Truth movement from Brigham Young University during 2005, introduced the theory that thermite/thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers; and in 2006, he refined this theory to propose that nanothermite or “superthermite” – a finely granulated form of thermite – was in fact the substance used, and its high reactivity served to pulverize the steel, concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings’ contents. In an effort to confirm the claims being made about thermite and nanothermite, T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite. The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly. Hightower wrote directly to Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, citing a frequently-referenced March 2005 LLNL paper on thermite, which can be downloaded from the Reference 2 link at the bottom of http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html This paper explains what nano-composites are, focusing on thermite mixtures and how they are produced. It also includes some experimental results. As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’" What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?” Gage responded: “The nanothermite was set in a bed of organic silica, which I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume work. In addition, I believe that the authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Without further characterization, the “bed of organic silica” is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is raised that “other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona fide explosives. Hightower decided to take an even closer look at the claims advanced on behalf of nanothermite, and has spent several months researching everything he could find in the open literature. Again and again, he found that thermite, even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive. So if nanothermite is to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11, it would have had to have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down. What was it combined with? By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains. There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movement’s nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem. For example, during a recent interview (“9/11: Explosive Testimony Exclusive” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY), Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up, which allows for the option of adding other chemicals to make it explosive. He states that the role played by the red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on observation of the towers’ destruction and the molten metal present, that both explosives and incendiaries were used. It’s just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove that the nanothermitic material they found in the dust has the explosive properties he believes were necessary to accomplish the destruction. Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings." TBC...
9/10/2015 5:21:06 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	cont. "9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event, it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its aftermath – including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments. Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives the discovery of nanothermite presents. Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and may indeed argue, “We still have no real ‘hard evidence’ proving that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.” We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on. James Fetzer
9/10/2015 5:25:28 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE? & THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering INTRODUCTION This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite. "Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.” Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge. EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2) “Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.” “I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2) Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member. Later in the paper Jones says “"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive. COMPARING NANOTHERMITE REACTION VELOCITIES TO EXPLOSIVE VELOCITIES The explanation given for claiming that nanothermite is an explosive goes something like this. The thermite reaction is Fe2O3 + 2 Al ---> 2 Fe + Al2O3 By making the particle sizes of the reactants smaller, down to the nanosize (approximately 30 nm to 60 nm) and mixing them well, the reaction takes place so fast that it becomes explosive. Let's look at some data from technical papers where the reaction velocity of nanothermites were measured and compare these values with the reaction velocities of explosives to see if it seems reasonable to call nanothermite an explosive. A paper by Spitzer et al. published in the Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids in 2010 presents a variety of research on energetic nano-materials. (5) In one section they deal with nano-thermites made with tungsten trioxide (WO3) and aluminum nano-particles. They experimented with different particle sizes, but they highlight the mixture made with the smallest nano-particles of both WO3 and Al for its impressive performance. “WO3/Al nano-thermites, which contain only nano-particles have an impressive reactivity. The fireball generated by the deflagration is so hot that a slamming due to overpressure is heard. The combustion rate can reach 7.3 m/s. This value is extremely high compared to classical energetic materials.” (5) http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html
9/10/2015 5:26:13 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: Thermite is not an explosive and not a reasonable explanation. 9/11 truth only chose thermite after the videos did not produce evidence for conventional explosives. They do not understand that it is not a logical nor practical choice for CD. The NIST didn't need to check for residue of explosive compounds, as there was no evidence to suggest the need. There was no barotrauma on the bodies, there was no evidence of the Munroe effect upon any of the steel; no Det cord, no RF screening etc. The NIST modelled for explosives and they couldn't replicate the collapse using the models. Can you produce another building falling in that manner, due to fire, before or since? Ever seen pyroclastic flows and burned out, and flipped over cars, blocks away from other office fires? I know I can't convince people water is wet. I know there are tons of websites that are more than willing to explain away any detail one cares to bring up. My only hope is that people will honestly question what they're being told
9/10/2015 5:27:05 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	cont. "A paper by Clapsaddle et al. published by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2005 also contains some reaction rate data for nanothermite composed of nano-particles of Fe2O3 and aluminum. (6) In Figure 2. in the paper the combustion velocity is plotted versus percent SiO2 content. The highest values were obtained at zero percent SiO2, so those are the only values I am going to cite. The nanothermite produced by a sol gel process had the highest velocity of 40.5 m/s, compared to the one produced by a simple mixing of the nano-particles with a combustion velocity of 8.8 m/s. (6) Compare the above combustion velocities of nanothermite with the detonation velocities of high explosives HMX and RDX of 9,100 m/s and 8,750 m/s, respectively, and they are dwarfed by the velocities of the conventional high explosives. Steven Jones appears to be calling the nanothermite reaction explosive only in the sense that it is reacting much faster than regular thermite, but not in the sense that it is anywhere near as explosive as a conventional high explosive. By failing to make this distinction Jones has misled nearly the entire 911 truth movement into believing that nanothermite is a super explosive, possibly even more powerful than conventional high explosives. From the above, it is quite clear that the “nano” in nanothermite does not make the thermite explosive anywhere near the degree of a high explosive like RDX. In addition to saying that nano-izing thermite makes it explosive, I have heard Jones say that adding organics to nanothermite also makes it explosive. This issue is explored in the next section." I apoligise for the amount of cut and paste, but certain individuals on here won't click on supplied links.
9/10/2015 5:34:04 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Can you produce another building falling in that manner, due to fire, before or since? This is a fallacious argument. Factors to be considered: a) The design of the WTC b) The impact damage as well as the fires (why does 9/11 truth selectively omit that important fact?) c) The height of the fires above ground level Can you produce a building that suffered the same insults before or since? No. The anomalous nature of this event does not necessarily make it suspicious. Ever seen pyroclastic flows and burned out, and flipped over cars, blocks away from other office fires? The 'Pyroclastic flow' term was a metaphor. The burned out cars were from the streets surrounding the WTC and were towed away fairly early into other streets to allow access for emergency vehicles. The incredulity on offer here originated from Dr. Judy Woods and she did not investigate beyond her immediate assumptions. I know I can't convince people water is wet. I know there are tons of websites that are more than willing to explain away any detail one cares to bring up. My only hope is that people will honestly question what they're being told So do I, and I hope they don't fall for the scams promulgated by Gage, Fetzer and the other con artists.
9/10/2015 5:37:29 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO MAKE A NANOTHERMITE EXPLOSIVE? " First I would like to quote an entire two paragraph section, with its title, from the LLNL paper. (6) “Gas generating Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R (R = –(CH2)2(CF2)7CF3) nanocomposites. ” “One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects. Typically, work can be done by a rapidly produced gas that is released during the energetic reaction. Towards this end, the silica phase of sol-gel prepared oxidizers, in addition to modifying the burning velocities, has also been used to incorporate organic functionality that will decompose and generate gas upon ignition of the energetic composite [3-4,7]. Phenomenological burn observations of these materials indicate that the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposites burn very rapidly and violently, essentially to completion, with the generation of significant amounts of gas. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the ignition of an energetic nanocomposite oxidizer mixed with 2 µm aluminum metal without (left) and with (middle) organic functionalization. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite without organic functionalization exhibits rapid ignition and emission of light and heat. The still image of the energetic nanocomposite with organic functionalization also exhibits these characteristics, but it also exhibits hot particle ejection due to the production of gas upon ignition. This reaction is very exothermic and results in the production of very high temperatures, intense light, and pressure from the generation of the gaseous byproducts resulting from the decomposition of the organic moieties.” “These materials were also mixed with nanometer aluminum. Figure 5 (right) shows a still image of the ignition of the Al-Fe2O3-SiO3/2-R nanocomposite mixed with 40 nm aluminum. This composite is much more reactive than the same oxidizing phase mixed with 2 µm aluminum metal; the burning of the composite with 40 nm aluminum occurs much too quickly to be able to observe the hot particle ejection. This observation is a good example of the importance mixing and the size scale of the reactants can have on the physical properties of the final energetic composite material. When the degree of mixing is on the nanoscale, the material is observed to react much more quickly, presumably due to the increase in mass transport rates of the reactants, as discussed above.” (6) Note that in the title of the section quoted above, the symbol R is used to represent the organic functionality added to the nanothermite. In this case it is a 10 carbon atom straight chain functional group fully saturated, with hydrogen atoms on the first two carbon atoms of the chain and fluorine atoms on all the rest. I have not explored the precise energy level of this functional group, but I can tell by just looking at it that it will consume energy (from the thermite reaction) in order to break it down into multiple smaller molecules in order to get the expanding gases necessary to make it behave as explained. This is not an efficient way to make an explosive. I wouldn't expect the explosiveness to be anywhere near that of a conventional high explosive, and the qualitative description given in the paper certainly does not seem to support it being a true explosive, but unfortunately the paper does not give data on what its reaction rate would be. Wouldn't it be better if the organic added to the nanothermite was a molecule that, instead of consuming energy to drive its decomposition, actually produces energy as it decomposes? Such a molecule could be the RDX molecule. This leads to the quoted two-paragraph section below from the Spitzer et al. paper. (5)" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html tbc.
9/10/2015 5:38:35 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Those towers were specifically designed to withstand airliners crashing into them. Have the designers been sued for their design flaws? Have the contractors been sued for not building them to specs? Have the building codes been beefed up to account for the new possibilities exposed on 911?
9/10/2015 5:38:39 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	cont. "“3. Gas generating nano-thermites ” “Thermites are energetic materials, which do not release gaseous species when they decompose. However, explosives can be blended in thermites to give them blasting properties. The idea developed at ISL is to solidify explosives in porous inorganic matrixes described previously. Gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) are prepared by mixing Cr2O3/RDX and MnO2/RDX materials with aluminium nano-particles. The combustion mechanisms of these nano-thermites were investigated by DSC and high-speed video. In the case of Cr2O3-based GGNT, the decomposition of RDX induces the expansion and the fragmentation of the oxide matrix. The resulting Cr2O3 nano-particles, which are preheated by the combustion of the explosive, react violently with aluminium nano-particles. In the case of MnO2-based GGNT, the mechanism of combustion is somewhat different because the decomposition of RDX induces the melting of oxide particles. The droplets of molten MnO2 react with aluminium nano-particles.” “The non-confined combustion of GGNT is rather slow (1-11 cm/s) in comparison with other nano-thermites presented here. However, in a confined environment their combustion rate is expected to be significantly higher. Indeed, the thermal decomposition of GGNT produces gaseous species, which contribute to increase the pressure and the combustion rate in accordance with the Vieille’s law. The thermal decomposition of miscellaneous GGNT compositions was studied in a closed vessel equipped with a pressure gauge. The GGNT were fired with a laser beam through a quartz window. The pressure signal was recorded along time for each material (Fig. 7). The pressure released by the combustion of a GGNT is directly linked to the RDX content of the nano-composite used to elaborate it. Depending on its formulation, a GGNT can provide a pressure ranging from a few bars to nearly three thousand bars.” (5) I am surprised by the low number given for the reaction velocity, only 1-11 cm/s. Also, it does not say what percent RDX resulted in this low velocity. Maybe it was a very low content of RDX. But the main point I want to make about the above quoted section does not depend on this velocity anyway. The key point is that you have to blend explosives (like RDX) into nanothermite to make it an explosive (“give them blasting properties”)."
9/10/2015 5:41:56 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Those towers were specifically designed to withstand airliners crashing into them. The architects designed the WTC to withstand the impacts of a 707, but they failed to factor in the fuel load. Have the designers been sued for their design flaws? No, and it is unlikely owing to the anomalous nature of the event. Have the contractors been sued for not building them to specs? What are you arguing here? The failure of the fire-proofing? Have the building codes been beefed up to account for the new possibilities exposed on 911? Yes, and that was the purpose of the NIST report. I don't think there is retroactive work going on, but there are new codes in place for new buildings.
9/10/2015 5:44:33 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	WHAT NANOTHERMITE ADVOCATES NEED TO DO TO CLARIFY THEIR THEORY "Steven E. Jones and other nanothermite theory advocates should be upfront and truthful about these issues, and clearly elaborate upon the factors missing from their theory that need further fleshing out. It is not good enough to just say “explosive nanothermite” over and over again without explaining exactly what is meant by the term. If they think that incendiary thermite or incendiary nanothermite or low explosive nanothermite or high explosive nanothermite were used in cutter-charges, or some combination, then they should say so. The lack of or degree of explosiveness claimed, whether incendiary, low explosive, or high explosive, is key, because the type of cutter-charge used would depend on this. Once they clarify what they mean by their use of the term “nanothermite”, then they should start describing the quantities of thermite that would have been necessary for the destruction. Only by adding these details to their theory can it be fairly evaluated against alternative theories of the destruction of the buildings of the World Trade Center for the benefit of the wider 9/11 truth community.' THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE 'Find and document peer reviewed scientific research that demonstrates that a gas generating nanothermite (GGNT) based upon iron (III) oxide (Fe2O3) and aluminum (Al), where the gas generating chemical added to the nanothermite is not itself a high explosive, can be made to be a high explosive with at least a detonation velocity of 2000 m/s. The author of this paper will donate $100 for every 1000 m/s of detonation velocity that can be documented, the donation not to exceed $1,000. For example, if a detonation velocity of 5500 m/s can be documented, then the donation amount will be $550. Only one prize will be awarded in the form of a donation to AE911Truth, and it will be awarded based upon the highest detonation velocity that can be documented. Those submitting entries grant the author the right to publish their entries. Entries must be in the form of a brief (no longer than one page) write-up, with the peer reviewed research cited, and at least scanned copies (electronic pdf files) of the cover page(s) and pages relied upon of the technical papers, if not a submittal of the entire paper(s). Entries should be sent by email to [email protected] by June 20, 2011. The award will be announced and paid by July 20, 2011." 1 May 2011
9/10/2015 5:45:11 PM	West Plains, MO
longbobby Lufkin, TX 54, joined Aug. 2010	Quote from class5: Thermite is not an explosive and not a reasonable explanation. ---------------------------------- ORLY? Then why does the military manufacture thermite GRENADES? Thermite Grenades - Intense Heat Special hand grenade is used to destroy weapons, bunkers and vehicles. Thermite grenades are one of the most destructive weapons used by the U.S. military. Molten Iron A wide variety of hand grenades are used today by the U.S. military. Hand grenades are loosely defined as any anti-personnel device that explodes on release. The M67 is the current fragmentation or “frag” grenade used by American and Canadian soldiers. However, the most destructive hand grenade used by U.S. soldiers is the thermite grenade. A powerful incendiary device, thermite grenades produce intense heat through a chemical reaction. Thermite is known as a "pyrotechnic composition" that burns intensely when ignited. When detonated, thermite grenades produce molten iron from a violent reaction of the weapon’s thermite filler. Some thermite grenades have been known to burn at temperatures of nearly 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The extreme heat makes thermite grenades good for destroying weapons caches, bunkers and vehicles. Thermite grenades are capable of burning through an engine block in seconds. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/thermite.htm
9/10/2015 6:32:45 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: Yes, and that was the purpose of the NIST report. I don't think there is retroactive work going on, but there are new codes in place for new buildings. Source?
9/10/2015 6:53:00 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Source? http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BYb7cly6880%3D&tabid=2684&language=en-US http://www.disaster-resource.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251%3Amaking-safer-structures-the-effects-of-9-11-on-todays-new-building-codes&catid=8%3Afacility-issues&itemid=14 http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm http://architecture.about.com/od/structural/a/Did-9-11-Change-The-Way-We-Build.htm It's an ongoing process, but changes are in place.
9/10/2015 7:04:52 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from class5: http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BYb7cly6880%3D&tabid=2684&language=en-US http://www.disaster-resource.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=251%3Amaking-safer-structures-the-effects-of-9-11-on-todays-new-building-codes&catid=8%3Afacility-issues&itemid=14 http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm http://architecture.about.com/od/structural/a/Did-9-11-Change-The-Way-We-Build.htm It's an ongoing process, but changes are in place. Thank you for the links. I had actively looked 4 or 5 years back and didn't find anything concrete.
9/10/2015 7:08:13 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Thank you for the links. I had actively looked 4 or 5 years back and didn't find anything concrete. Pardon the pun. Not a problem. There are many more, but those should suffice.
9/10/2015 7:24:19 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	One note on your earlier post. The idea that designers figured on planes crashing with no fuel, if true, seems extremely actionable
9/10/2015 7:28:14 PM	West Plains, MO
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 31, joined Dec. 2012	Quote from naprinciple: One note on your earlier post. The idea that designers figured on planes crashing with no fuel, if true, seems extremely actionable Airliners don't land with much fuel in their tanks. The more fuel you carry, the more you weight, the less efficient the fuel economy, the less profit. The idea was if an accident was to happen, it would happen as an airliner was landing. They envisioned a 707 traveling at only a couple hundred miles an hour with not nearly as much fuel as the airliners that hit the towers.
9/10/2015 7:32:15 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: One note on your earlier post. The idea that designers figured on planes crashing with no fuel, if true, seems extremely actionable It does seem like an imposing error, I agree. One gets the impression they didn't take the impact of aircraft all that seriously back in the '70's, which is odd in light of amount of hijackings that occurred in that decade. Perhaps complacency played a role in this, after all, some have argued that the attacks occurred owing to complacency. I'll have to investigate this angle further, and in doing so, I should come across the source for you.
9/10/2015 7:33:13 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from progrocknic: Airliners don't land with much fuel in their tanks. The more fuel you carry, the more you weight, the less efficient the fuel economy, the less profit. The idea was if an accident was to happen, it would happen as an airliner was landing. They envisioned a 707 traveling at only a couple hundred miles an hour with not nearly as much fuel as the airliners that hit the towers. Makes sense. Take off flight paths avoid the city. Hello Prog. [Edited 9/10/2015 7:34:05 PM ]
9/10/2015 8:09:18 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought engineering principles try to account for the worse case scenario, not best case
9/10/2015 8:25:07 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from naprinciple: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought engineering principles try to account for the worse case scenario, not best case And in the 1970's it may have been appropriate for the legislation at the time, and much has changed since. It's a balancing act between the budget, the materials, and the safety legislation at the time. All projects have these problems, as I know only too well. I'm dealing with a similar situation as we speak.
9/10/2015 9:00:10 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	NA Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought engineering principles try to account for the worse case scenario, not best case =========================================================== Exactly. Those towers were built to withstand more than 1 plane impact and Im sure they thought about a terror attack when they built them. Planes full of jet fuel too....but that's beside the point because no planes.......NO PLANES flew that day out of the 4 alleged planes. The toasted cars blocks away upside down and door handles missing proves it was some new sort of military weapon used on 9-11 [ if one has an open mind since toasted cars like that have never been seen before......at least Id bet a dollar to a doughnut they haven't been in such a manner blocks away. Some wierd new type of energy weapon...had to be.
9/10/2015 9:03:29 PM	West Plains, MO
aposorichie Berwyn, IL 59, joined Jan. 2009	Class 5 how can you have an avatar like that when you know that no planes hit the WTCs on 9/11? The Jews , the US govt and space aliens did 9/11 you friggin azz. When will you ever wake up and come to the truther?
9/10/2015 9:05:42 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from 57channels: Exactly. Those towers were built to withstand more than 1 plane impact and Im sure they thought about a terror attack when they built them. Planes full of jet fuel too....but that's beside the point because no planes.......NO PLANES flew that day out of the 4 alleged planes. Did they expect the amount of columns removed by the impact? No. The impact damaged many of the supporting and core columns. The building was doomed. The toasted cars blocks away upside down and door handles missing proves it was some new sort of military weapon used on 9-11 [ if one has an open mind since toasted cars like that have never been seen before......at least Id bet a dollar to a doughnut they haven't been in such a manner blocks away. Some wierd new type of energy weapon...had to be. And here comes the whacky stuff. The cars were burned during the collapse and were relocated in haste to surrounding streets as to not impede the emergency service vehicles. Of course 9/11 truth has to go down loopy road and bring in space beams. I really have to feel sorry for individuals with such a mental disability.
9/10/2015 9:06:15 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from aposorichie: Class 5 how can you have an avatar like that when you know that no planes hit the WTCs on 9/11? The Jews , the US govt and space aliens did 9/11 you friggin azz. When will you ever wake up and come to the truther? When I receive a lobotomy.
9/10/2015 9:17:54 PM	West Plains, MO
naprinciple West Plains, MO 46, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from 57channels: NA Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought engineering principles try to account for the worse case scenario, not best case =========================================================== Exactly. Those towers were built to withstand more than 1 plane impact and Im sure they thought about a terror attack when they built them. Planes full of jet fuel too....but that's beside the point because no planes.......NO PLANES flew that day out of the 4 alleged planes. The toasted cars blocks away upside down and door handles missing proves it was some new sort of military weapon used on 9-11 [ if one has an open mind since toasted cars like that have never been seen before......at least Id bet a dollar to a doughnut they haven't been in such a manner blocks away. Some wierd new type of energy weapon...had to be. ***************************************** I'm convinced it was more than fire and gravity, but I don't pretend to know more than that. I'm also not convince no planes flew, but I am convinced that the TV footage was manipulated, but don't know how much, or to what end.
9/10/2015 9:20:01 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	cl-ASS No. The impact damaged many of the supporting and core columns. The building was doomed. =================================================== That is a flat out lie...but your good at lying. Go to your stupid gooberment website and list alot of gobbledeepgoop like you always do. Show me the pics of the debri that fell to the ground when the alleged plane hit the south tower....okydoky?? Surely parts of 175 would have broke off or smashed against the building and fell to the ground??? Then show me the black boxes and just a few serial # parts of all 4 planes. There must have been hundreds of thousands of serial # parts at Shanksville, and the Pentagon. Here it comes.......that pic of the planted piece that looked like it came from a chopper.
9/10/2015 9:22:32 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	Show me the pics of the debri that fell to the ground when the alleged plane hit the south tower....okydoky?? Surely parts of 175 would have broke off or smashed against the building and fell to the ground??? Show me the pics of the debri that fell to the ground when the alleged plane hit the south tower....okydoky?? Surely parts of 175 would have broke off or smashed against the building and fell to the ground??? Show me the pics of the debri that fell to the ground when the alleged plane hit the south tower....okydoky?? Surely parts of 175 would have broke off or smashed against the building and fell to the ground???
9/10/2015 9:34:06 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	NA The official story says Flight 175 crashed into North tower. Now if that was true....and a plane really did crash [ whether it was 175 or a remote controlled fuel tanker ] Dont you think film crews would have been there to capture the debri that fell to the ground?? Of course they would have been there filming the parts of the plane that fell to the ground [ knowing the towers would not get blown to smithereens for at least 45 minutes ] Plenty of time to get it all on film...........but since they didnt film the debri.........all we get is some alleged plane melding into the south tower. The only piece of evidence is a hologram of a phony plane basically landing inside the tower??? Then...a split second later all the smoke and fire. Physics just dissappeared for a few seconds???
9/10/2015 9:35:45 PM	West Plains, MO
class5 Queensland Australia 52, joined Jan. 2014	Quote from 57channels: That is a flat out lie...but your good at lying. Not that you can demonstrate anywhere I've lied, so you ad hom is just more junk from you. Go to your stupid gooberment website and list alot of gobbledeepgoop like you always do. Show me the pics of the debri that fell to the ground when the alleged plane hit the south tower....okydoky?? I already have, and I didn't need a government site. Remember the so-called tin fuselage painted in primer that SRV bleated on about for about 20 pages? It was wreckage of UA 175. Where were you? Head up arse? Surely parts of 175 would have broke off or smashed against the building and fell to the ground??? Yes, they did. Search: "UA175 parts on WTC 5" Then show me the black boxes Destroyed, they don't always survive unlike the urban myth. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes and just a few serial # parts of all 4 planes. There must have been hundreds of thousands of serial # parts at Shanksville, and the Pentagon. Already done. Here it comes.......that pic of the planted piece that looked like it came from a chopper. The part that any of you are unable to debunk. Not that I particularly care because you believe in orbs and space beams. Here's a thing, how about you provide some evidence for your insane claims? I know you can't and dumb insults is about the limit of your abilities. [Edited 9/10/2015 9:36:33 PM ]
9/10/2015 9:39:21 PM	West Plains, MO
57channels Bettendorf, IA 64, joined May. 2008 online now!	cl-ASS Yes, they did. Search: "UA175 parts on WTC 5" =================================================== I want the parts that fell to the ground. Surely the wings would have sheared off and fell to the ground. Show me

naprinciple - West Plains, MO

the hookup app

personal mega

the hookup app

personal mega

WTC truth ATTACKS on Pentagon. Destroying the EVIDENCE against them!

West Plains, MO