where have i used any of these tactics leeray?
post the links.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
post the links.
For a start I can't post links. Not yet anyway. Also, I have not stated that you or anyone in particular have done all or any of the things mentioned above. I was generalising.
However, I have had a quick look through some of the previous posts and there is a certain 'take my word for it' attitude that you display.
For example, Tony would say that there is enough evidence to rule out the Aeroplane and the fire being the cause of collapse, and he has produced links to how he came to this conclusion earlier in the thread.
Whereas you say that you can rule out bombs. On what grounds? Your say-so?
Let's see your evidence. Convince me. Please.
And by the way, they're not tactics. They tend to be reactions.
Last edited:
the only one that can convince you is you, yourself.
the evidence is out there.
so ultimately, what happened to the wtc is a question of religious faith for you....I see.
but you are wrong. Nanothermite was specified as a possibilty in Jones first publications in December 2005.
Much as you like to believe that nanothermite was put forward as a reaction to your own personal remarks regarding the problems with macro thermite, it has always been ruled-in from the start. you 're just wrong on this, believe it!
stop putting words in my mouth headspin.
steve jones was involved with 9/11 as soon as the dust settled.
nanothermite wasn't even mentioned then.
see above
its a logical conclusion reading what you wrote, nobody is stopping you putting forward the evidence you personally find compelling.
You are wrong.
December 2005 is when Steven Jones came on the scene.
see above.
i stand corrected.
But unrepentent.
What does it say about your thinking that you would say this:
Something that would be so easy to check. I don't pay attention to Jones but even I know he didn't show up until years later, though I could not have specified a date.
Have you found the concrete in the NCSTAR1 report yet?
psik
The official story's lethal paper, Round 2
This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.
Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...
I haven't heard any other possibilities offered, by either side. Mine would atleast fit in with a lot of other evidence pointing to the use of thermite/thermate. Feel free to offer a different possibility if you have any.
Sure, if you're thinking of the type of 'softening' that a few well placed missiles can accomplish. I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...
This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.
scott3x said:shaman_ said:scott3x said:Headspin may not have the time, but I have a bit. I found a particularly amusing link which was a link within the first link you mention in post 185, (wouldn't open, JREF can be real slow sometimes):
Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.
Must be some pretty lethal 'paper'
So was that done by the thermite that burns, cuts or explodes? Was is nanothermite, superthermite, thermite, thermate, or just bombs?
I'd say it was done by some type of thermite, probably thermate, but perhaps Headspin could weigh in as well.
You didn’t answer my question.
Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...
shaman_ said:
I haven't heard any other possibilities offered, by either side. Mine would atleast fit in with a lot of other evidence pointing to the use of thermite/thermate. Feel free to offer a different possibility if you have any.
shaman_ said:
Sure, if you're thinking of the type of 'softening' that a few well placed missiles can accomplish
. I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...Kevin Ryan's expertise and UL's and NIST's tests of -real- steel
This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.
I agree. However, you continue to ignore the fact that he did much more then work with water. He details his research during his time working at Underwriter Laboratories, as well as after. You may want to read about it in his article "Propping up the War on Terror", starting at his sub heading "NIST and Underwriters Laboratories". I'll even give you the intro in the hopes that you will read further:
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
I agree that before 9/11 he was indeed not an expert on the WTC steel. This changed, however, when he realized that the company wherein he was a manager was deeply involved in certifying the quality of the steel floor assemblies within the WTC buildings; at that point, he began to seriously research the issue and question the relevant people in Underwriter Laboratories concerning this issue.
Ratings aside, I have already stated that a test was done with essentially no fireproofing on it. It didn't collapse either. Tony mentions that NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; apparently they claimed it wasn't a 'real' test and never revealed the results. If steel with essentially no fireproofing didn't collapse and they decided not to reveal the results with on the 'not really a test' steel with -no- fireproofing at all, I think we can all guess as to why they're not so keen on releasing those results.
This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.
I agree. However, you continue to ignore the fact that he did much more then work with water. He details his research during his time working at Underwriter Laboratories, as well as after. You may want to read about it in his article "Propping up the War on Terror", starting at his sub heading "NIST and Underwriters Laboratories". I'll even give you the intro in the hopes that you will read further:
In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
I agree that before 9/11 he was indeed not an expert on the WTC steel. This changed, however, when he realized that the company wherein he was a manager was deeply involved in certifying the quality of the steel floor assemblies within the WTC buildings; at that point, he began to seriously research the issue and question the relevant people in Underwriter Laboratories concerning this issue.
shaman_ said:
Ratings aside, I have already stated that a test was done with essentially no fireproofing on it. It didn't collapse either. Tony mentions that NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; apparently they claimed it wasn't a 'real' test and never revealed the results. If steel with essentially no fireproofing didn't collapse and they decided not to reveal the results with on the 'not really a test' steel with -no- fireproofing at all, I think we can all guess as to why they're not so keen on releasing those results.
Evidence speaks for itself
This post is in response to John99's post 884 in this thread.
The only thing you explained was your ignorance of how insurance works
I'm not using any of what I believe to be insults that should be censored:
moron, stupid, idiot, any f word or, (if you were a woman), something that I'd like to refer to as the 'w' word (whore). I don't think these need to be used on anyone. However, I believe that sometimes people are ignorant of certain things and I don't think it's generally a bad idea to point this out.
I believe my education is certainly adequate to speak of the issues concerning the flaws in the official 9/11 story as well as the evidence pointing towards an inside job. If you find that my credentials are insufficient, you are free to (a) point out where you think they are lacking or (b) decide to ignore me, just as I have the same freedoms when I respond to the posts of others here.
This post is in response to John99's post 884 in this thread.
scott3x said:God yeah. This is the guy who knows how insurance works
yeah, and i explained it to you.
The only thing you explained was your ignorance of how insurance works
I'm not using any of what I believe to be insults that should be censored:
moron, stupid, idiot, any f word or, (if you were a woman), something that I'd like to refer to as the 'w' word (whore). I don't think these need to be used on anyone. However, I believe that sometimes people are ignorant of certain things and I don't think it's generally a bad idea to point this out.
I believe my education is certainly adequate to speak of the issues concerning the flaws in the official 9/11 story as well as the evidence pointing towards an inside job. If you find that my credentials are insufficient, you are free to (a) point out where you think they are lacking or (b) decide to ignore me, just as I have the same freedoms when I respond to the posts of others here.
NIST's computer models tell an interesting tale...
This post is in response to Headspin's post 890 in this thread.
Wow. Good work Headspin. For those who want to take a look for themselves, page 63 is page 97 on the sidebar. For those who can't access the pdf or are too lazy to, the temperatures at the core of WTC 1 on floor 92, in what I'm guessing was Case A, were almost always dark blue (100C or less), with only a little bit of green in the top left corner (400-600C); and the fires were getting colder before the building collapsed. According to these diagrams (which I don't trust, since they were done on a tweaked computer model), there were some spots 1000C gas spots, but it moved around, lessening its effect in any particular spot. The south side was apparently never affected at all, while at the time when it was about to collapse, only the northwest side still had some fires going.
This post is in response to Headspin's post 890 in this thread.
Wow. Good work Headspin. For those who want to take a look for themselves, page 63 is page 97 on the sidebar. For those who can't access the pdf or are too lazy to, the temperatures at the core of WTC 1 on floor 92, in what I'm guessing was Case A, were almost always dark blue (100C or less), with only a little bit of green in the top left corner (400-600C); and the fires were getting colder before the building collapsed. According to these diagrams (which I don't trust, since they were done on a tweaked computer model), there were some spots 1000C gas spots, but it moved around, lessening its effect in any particular spot. The south side was apparently never affected at all, while at the time when it was about to collapse, only the northwest side still had some fires going.
Last edited:
Steven Jones, who has done a fairly thorough investigation of the WTC collapses, has claimed to have found some. I don't believe any other investigator has had both the will and the means to do an investigation to reveal this.
I assume that someone has claimed this. I may have heard a bit about it, can't remember. Perhaps one of the other people you mentioned could answer this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfiUHtvYI&feature=related
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html
...and the official investigators NIST, are on record stating they did not test for explosives/incendaries despite having access to unusual strange effects on structural steel girders that cannot be easily explained without chemical incendaries:http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf
listen people, A WITNESS is someone that was THERE.
steve jones WAS NOT at the debris feild on 9/11.
this character that headspin alludes to WAS NOT THERE.
as far as NIST goes, not a single investigator thought about testing for bombs?
who are you trying to kid?
furthermore you don't believe NIST when they say something that you don't agree with, now all of a sudden you do???
the explanation of "burning paper" seems to be just another example of implausible conjured speculation. I do not see how burning bits of paper can cause the uniform "corrosion" of so many vehicles in the vicinity in such a consitent manner.
Thermitic material could explain the effects seen on the cars.
. vehicles suffered what appeared to be chemical burns on areas only subjected to the dust.
. some vehicles caught in the dust appeared to spontaneoulsy catch fire.
. a witness caught in the hot dust cloud reported the dust burnt into their skin and caused a rash. Detritis (thermite microspheres?) oozed from the rash weeks after.
If the incendary material was aerosolised and crushed to particulate within the dust, then the dust may have had a hot corrosive effect close to the collapse area.
- Status