leaking pen wrote:
this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the
inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage
showing it from the inside.
Really! I didn't realize that. Is it possible to "line up" the view
from the inside and the images from the o
It is interesting that many can not seem rid themselves of a nagging suspicion
that explosives had to have been strategically placed (in advance) on the
specific WTC floors that the passenger jets
slammed into. I'm reminded of an old saying: "Sex at age 90 is like trying to
shoot pool with a rop
this is not true. we have footage that shows the collapse of the
inside of the building for the first few seconds, and arial footage
showing it from the inside.
On 2/27/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nick Palmer wrote:
> I do not think they went down in freefall, after a
Nick Palmer wrote:
I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate
looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged
structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above -
I suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined
I do not think they went down in freefall, after a few seconds the rate
looks like it nearly stabilises as the resistance from the undamaged
structure below just about cancels the acceleration of the mass above - I
suspect this figure of 9 or 10 seconds need to be examined from the videos
and
John Steck wrote:
>ANY resistance from 'pan caking' or structural failure would have shown up
>in a significant increase in collapse time... several orders of magnitude
>more.
That is incorrect. Many buildings have collapsed, on purpose and by accident,
and they fall nearly as quickly as with a
-j
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:50 AM
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
Let me say something here, people: This is a science forum. Please
apply a modicum of quantitative thinking, basic ph
On 2/22/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote
controlled live whales scheme pales in comparison :)
Oh look, your rhetoric made solid evidence disappear.
*poof*
Good job you don't have to deal with all those nasty facts.
Oh dear it's unbelievable one can believe such things. My remote controlled
live whales scheme pales in comparison :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Therm
John Berry wrote:
There were also reports of two of the planes landing safely at an
airport, yes really. (according to the Mayor anyway:
http://www.rense.com/general68/says.htm)
The transponder signals were turned off over an airport and turned
back on, but it would not have been possible fo
Well I must say at first I didn't believe it, but when you look at the
evidence the planes were clearly switched.
It starts off with the boarding of some of the flights, there were oddities
with different gates and such, very confusing, the details of one of the
planes was given, it was boarding
esday, February 21, 2007 1:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the
tec
leaking pen wrote:
Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying?
The planes were remote controlled, by CIA agents hiding behind the
grassy knoll, of course.
Haven't you been following the discussion? You've really gotta get with
the program, Pen.
The passengers were all off
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Jed, you have said more than once that (nearly)
all the expert engineers /knew/ it would collapse.
That's absolutely not what I read in the mainstream press reports . . .
These reports were premature, and wrong. Later
interviews and testimony by experts revealed th
Stranger and stranger. So how do you qualify the pilots, if not suicide pilots?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
> That's my point exactly.
&
Umm, so, if there were no suicide pilots, who was flying?
On 2/21/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technic
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical
stuff, members of the intelligence community did that.
Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots
That's my point exactly.
What I am saying has solid evidence to back it up, and you counter with
'Bush is a twit'.
Which while obviously true, no one is claiming he did any of the technical
stuff, members of the intelligence community did that.
Further no one is claiming there were suicide pilots
Zell, Chris wrote:
More than that, I doubt the WTC buildings were as well built as the
Empire State building - when it survived A collision with a WWII
vintage bomber.
That is incorrect. The Towers were far stronger and better built than
the Empire State building. If you were to try to build
Perhaps the answer lies in the Monty Python sketch in which a building
is maintained by hypnosis.
The problem with conspiracies is the obvious contradiction with real
world government competence. Take a good look
at Iraq or the intellectual depth of Bush and reason accordingly. I
don't see any re
Indeed, i recall experts being brought on teh air as the towers were
burning stating they were designed to take this and more. my
understanding the engineers who designed and built the suckers were
shocked when they fell.
On 2/20/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jed Rothwell
Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit? That is
impossible to predict!
Some other problems, equally severe, equally obvious:
How do you make the thermite work when there are thousands of gallons of
flaming kerosene around it, collapsing walls,
also, 5k pounds of thermite would be required to bring it down on its
own. thats not the conspiracy theory. the theory is that the
thermite was used to melt the concrete and weaken teh steal, allowing
the rest of the natural damage from the plane to do it. that requires
substantially less therm
John Berry writes:
>Actually it has been pointed out that there was a light (laser?) beam
>visible on the building which was probably used for painting the taget . . .
These were amateur pilots. An experienced pilot would have great difficulty
doing that. Many of the Japanese kamikaze pilots mis
/21/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
> I meant "what floor the airplane is going to hit."
- Original Message -
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
> I meant "what floor the airplane is going to hit." Sorry about that.
Err, I haven't followed the deb
I wrote:
PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit?
I meant "what floor the airplane is going to hit." Sorry about that.
Did he conclude the building was brought down by explosives? Then
he is a flake with a PhD, like Steve Jones.
Why do we need that kind of comment in a seri
I wrote:
PROBLEM: How do you know what airplane is going to hit? That is
impossible to predict!
Some other problems, equally severe, equally obvious:
How do you make the thermite work when there are thousands of gallons
of flaming kerosene around it, collapsing walls, no remaining
telephone
of course, the traces of thermite are , again, iron, aluminum, and the
oxides of each. ohh, and high heat.
i think its safe to say the site was FULL of said materials.
(besides, the sheared angle of the broken girder looks more like a
shaped charge explosive cutting through. which would have b
07 4:40 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
I have been sitting back in total OH!! over this thread.
I have even had Night Mares ('Scientists Gone Wild')
SO if I understand what has been going on, (Maybe) It's felt the Bush
Admin is implementing a what?
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite
as contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered it
at all. From the NIST site:
Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being
brought down by
Stiffler Scientific wrote:
I can not say it more clearly, this is "CRAP"
Agreed. And who needs a flame war on top of "crap."
This is my last posting on this subject.
Jones
Yes, thermite, at least the more comonly used stuff, is iron II oxide
and aluminum powder. it reduces the aluminum to aluminum oxide, and
creates molten iron. So you get molten iron, which cools black and
lumpy, and you get a blackish purplish slag laying on top of it, which
is the aluminum oxid
Jones Beene wrote:
Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite
as contributory agent is seriously in error. They never considered
it at all. From the NIST site:
Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being
brought down by controlled demolition
nce?
I can not say it more clearly, this is "CRAP"
> -Original Message-
> From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 3:16 PM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]: Re: No Thermite ?
>
>
> leaking pen wrote:
> &
leaking pen wrote:
not a skeptic, but, with the flow inside and out of the girder almost
even, that one looks more like it sheared off at an angle, and then
molten metal dripped over it.
Exactly. Anyone who says the NIST report somehow eliminated thermite as
contributory agent is seriously in
36 matches
Mail list logo
