|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-23-09 09:41 PM Original message |
Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-23-09 09:43 PM Response to Original message |
1. It's BACCKKKKK !!!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-23-09 09:53 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. 'No one seems to know' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 03:45 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Please, illuminate the world with your knowledge - nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Theobald (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 08:45 AM Response to Reply #3 |
4. He can't and he won't even try. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 01:05 PM Response to Reply #3 |
8. I suggest you do some reading |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 08:57 AM Response to Reply #1 |
5. Perhaps you could contact the authors of the paper for an answer to your question. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Realityhack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 10:57 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. By your definition all 'thermitic materials' would be 'active' n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 06:34 PM Response to Reply #5 |
14. Well thanks for the chemistry refresher, it's been a while |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:55 AM Response to Reply #14 |
33. I remember reading that the anthrax that was used after 9/11 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:32 AM Response to Reply #33 |
38. Why would you write a paper on something so mundane? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:37 AM Response to Reply #33 |
39. You point out a significat flaw in Jones etal's paper |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 12:30 PM Response to Reply #1 |
7. Re: What is "Active Thermitic Material"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 01:19 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. Oh, snap |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 01:26 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Yep. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
seemslikeadream (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 01:26 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Sometimes a picture needs painting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Realityhack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 01:49 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. The paper does not prove they found thermite. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 04:05 PM Response to Reply #12 |
13. For the dummies, with lots of pictures! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 06:36 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. So on the package does it say |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 08:00 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. No but I guess they could if they wanted to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 08:09 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. Perhaps Jones can enter another field he lacks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 08:13 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. That was so funny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 06:15 AM Response to Reply #1 |
25. Self delete. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 07:25 PM Response to Original message |
16. What is "inactive" thermetic material? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Apr-24-09 11:13 PM Response to Reply #16 |
20. residue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:16 AM Response to Reply #20 |
21. So active thermitic material is... thermite. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 01:00 AM Response to Reply #21 |
22. Do you suppose it's possible |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 01:15 AM Response to Reply #22 |
23. I believe that is what LARED is suggesting. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 07:44 AM Response to Reply #23 |
27. Without basis... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 07:48 AM Response to Reply #27 |
28. When someone can explain the basis of Jones etal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:21 AM Response to Reply #28 |
31. What is your basis |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:45 AM Response to Reply #31 |
32. Dishonest is a strong word |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 09:01 AM Response to Reply #31 |
36. My basis for suggesting authorial dishonesty |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:40 AM Response to Reply #36 |
40. So... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:50 AM Response to Reply #40 |
42. The authors of the paper certainly didn't do their due dilligence in ruling it out. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:23 AM Response to Reply #42 |
43. According to whom? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:31 AM Response to Reply #43 |
45. Are you seriously suggesting it isn't blindingly obvious? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:37 PM Response to Reply #45 |
63. self-deleted |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:42 PM Response to Reply #45 |
64. Do you speak for everyone who has read it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:45 PM Response to Reply #64 |
66. Sure they have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:31 PM Response to Reply #66 |
86. Like these... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:16 AM Response to Reply #86 |
92. do you have any background in science? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:00 AM Response to Reply #92 |
93. Address the science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:19 AM Response to Reply #93 |
94. defend your argument instead of moving the goalposts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:36 AM Response to Reply #94 |
96. That's what I did |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:43 AM Response to Reply #96 |
97. moving the goalposts again |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 08:38 AM Response to Reply #97 |
102. No, just disproving your assertion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 09:37 AM Response to Reply #102 |
103. You don't need to be a materials scientist to see that the paper has "significant flaws" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:37 PM Response to Reply #103 |
150. Here's a materials scientist who read the paper... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:17 AM Response to Reply #150 |
156. Well, good. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 05:37 AM Response to Reply #150 |
160. "I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 08:56 AM Response to Reply #160 |
222. Amused because... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:55 AM Response to Reply #222 |
229. oh, for pity's sake |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:02 AM Response to Reply #150 |
161. After reading this it seems only one thing comes to mind |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:40 AM Response to Reply #161 |
165. no, I think that's the wrong conclusion from these premises |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 05:32 PM Response to Reply #165 |
208. I can't be so charitable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:54 PM Response to Reply #208 |
212. "if I know that's nonsense he must" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:36 PM Response to Reply #212 |
214. That's why I say... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 06:28 AM Response to Reply #214 |
220. I'm uneasy with that saying, but I can accept it with a clarification(?) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:21 AM Response to Reply #220 |
225. Fair enough. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:13 AM Response to Reply #161 |
223. Kind of like |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 08:47 PM Response to Reply #223 |
310. You mean the FBI right? (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
snooper2 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-07-09 10:10 AM Response to Reply #150 |
307. Oh, David L. Griscom, PhD sure is one unbiased opinion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-07-09 10:37 AM Response to Reply #307 |
308. Everyone is biased |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 12:08 PM Response to Reply #102 |
105. if you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't trust your memory |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:09 PM Response to Reply #105 |
107. Well, this is funny |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:36 PM Response to Reply #107 |
114. why can't you just admit that you flat-out misquoted me?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:32 PM Response to Reply #114 |
118. More distractions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:43 PM Response to Reply #118 |
129. hello? hello?! RTFT -- those are not my words!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:52 PM Response to Reply #129 |
130. procopia appears to be confusing posts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:32 PM Response to Reply #130 |
134. indeed the very nub of my gist ;) n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:07 PM Response to Reply #107 |
132. Well, your confusion seems to come from a basic lack of understanding of the issues |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:44 PM Response to Reply #132 |
135. FWIW the claim I had in mind is slightly weaker |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 08:37 PM Response to Reply #132 |
141. No, the confusion comes from all OCTists sounding alike |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 09:45 PM Response to Reply #141 |
145. Yeah, I'm sure they know enough about research... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:26 PM Response to Reply #145 |
148. Samo samo |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:46 PM Response to Reply #148 |
151. I noticed you didn't respond to my criticism of the paper above |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:53 PM Response to Reply #151 |
152. RTFT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 11:55 PM Response to Reply #152 |
153. But I have RTFT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 12:58 AM Response to Reply #153 |
154. You're sounding desperate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:14 AM Response to Reply #154 |
155. You're sounding like you got nothin' at all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:43 AM Response to Reply #155 |
157. Expert opinion is something |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:56 AM Response to Reply #157 |
158. Oh? And what was the formula in the 60s? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:10 AM Response to Reply #158 |
168. IIRC Greening has revised his opinion anyway. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 05:33 AM Response to Reply #168 |
233. Revised? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 08:02 AM Response to Reply #233 |
237. He seems to think that at least some of the chips... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:28 AM Response to Reply #158 |
172. Ask Dr. Greening |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:08 AM Response to Reply #172 |
182. Why should we do what Jones should have done in the first place? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:33 AM Response to Reply #182 |
192. Because, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 12:16 PM Response to Reply #192 |
195. Because it is Jones' responsibility to falsify his hypothesis as best he can. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 01:42 PM Response to Reply #195 |
198. I don't know what's so complicated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:25 AM Response to Reply #172 |
185. Jones says he HAS steel samples |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:36 AM Response to Reply #185 |
193. How do you know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:49 AM Response to Reply #193 |
194. If they look exactly like the steel rustproofing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 07:19 AM Response to Reply #194 |
245. The WTC collapses looked exactly like |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 09:05 AM Response to Reply #245 |
253. The tower collapses look NOTHING AT ALL like a controlled demolition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 10:55 AM Response to Reply #253 |
256. WTC 7, especially, looked exactly like a controlled demolition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 11:52 AM Response to Reply #256 |
259. Jowenko didn't arrive at that conclusion on his own... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 12:35 PM Response to Reply #259 |
260. Yes, he did |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 12:48 PM Response to Reply #260 |
261. Wrong, again.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:06 PM Response to Reply #261 |
263. Ridiculous |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:15 PM Response to Reply #263 |
266. Except it doesn't look "just like a controlled demolition"... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 02:36 PM Response to Reply #266 |
269. It's about 30 floors obscured in most views of the tower. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 09:46 PM Response to Reply #266 |
275. To any objective person, it does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 10:06 PM Response to Reply #275 |
276. First of all... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:09 AM Response to Reply #276 |
278. Define "near" free fall |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:18 AM Response to Reply #278 |
279. Wait - why are you asking him to define it?! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:34 AM Response to Reply #279 |
280. How many seconds over free-fall speed is considered "near"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:40 AM Response to Reply #280 |
281. You're arguing about something... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 01:34 AM Response to Reply #281 |
282. WTC 7 collapse looked exactly like controlled demolition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 02:19 AM Response to Reply #282 |
283. no, it didn't and... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 09:11 AM Response to Reply #283 |
286. Yes, it did...exactly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 09:52 AM Response to Reply #286 |
288. Except that's not the only characteristic one looks for. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 09:55 AM Response to Reply #282 |
289. It's not about terminology - it's about a fundamental misunderstanding. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:26 AM Response to Reply #289 |
291. The WTC 7 collapse looked exactly like controlled demolition. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:32 AM Response to Reply #291 |
292. "NIST admitted 2.5 seconds of free fall in WTC 7" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:48 AM Response to Reply #292 |
295. So what? SO WHAT? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:48 PM Response to Reply #295 |
300. Why would it be significant? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 05:43 PM Response to Reply #295 |
301. The WTC also looked like a souffle collapsing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:35 AM Response to Reply #291 |
293. "One doesn't need a physics background to describe the collapses" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:39 AM Response to Reply #293 |
294. The WTC 7 collapse looks just like controlled demolition |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:58 AM Response to Reply #294 |
297. Does it SOUND exactly like controlled demolition? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:45 PM Response to Reply #294 |
299. No, they don't. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:41 PM Response to Reply #291 |
298. No, it's a perfectly sensible assertion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 08:43 AM Response to Reply #279 |
285. As per here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 12:08 AM Response to Reply #275 |
277. "Near free fall speed"? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 08:50 PM Response to Reply #263 |
311. If it had looked just like CD |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:04 PM Response to Reply #260 |
262. Jowenko had already come to the conclusion that Silverstein "pulled" the building |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:09 PM Response to Reply #262 |
265. How can you say that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:18 PM Response to Reply #265 |
267. No, he was surprised to learn it was on the same day.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 09:26 PM Response to Reply #267 |
273. Surprised to learn it was the same day...but...anchored? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 09:31 PM Response to Reply #273 |
274. Because the people showing him the video.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:42 PM Response to Reply #265 |
268. Because of the words he used after seeing the video. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 02:53 PM Response to Reply #256 |
270. WTC 7 looked like a CD because all you can see is the top of the building |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 02:58 PM Response to Reply #270 |
271. WTC 7, I assume you mean |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 03:02 PM Response to Reply #271 |
272. Thanks, edited for clarity (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 05:17 AM Response to Reply #141 |
159. charitably, I'll just say, pwned |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 07:35 AM Response to Reply #159 |
167. Of course you will |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:11 AM Response to Reply #167 |
169. No, instead you tried to turn it into an insult. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:35 AM Response to Reply #169 |
174. Why do you continue with these distractions? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:05 AM Response to Reply #174 |
180. This, coming from the poster... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:25 AM Response to Reply #180 |
191. You're right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 01:39 PM Response to Reply #191 |
197. No, it wasn't proven to be incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 07:27 AM Response to Reply #197 |
221. Blatant generalizations are almost always wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:23 AM Response to Reply #221 |
226. It is not as absurd as claiming there aren't significant flaws. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-07-09 07:07 AM Response to Reply #226 |
306. I've read a fair amount from 2 of Jones' peer reviewed papers.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:17 PM Response to Reply #86 |
110. Pardon me if I don't trust Jones. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:27 PM Response to Reply #110 |
111. I'm not convinced |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:33 PM Response to Reply #111 |
112. You have the right to establish whatever criteria you wish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:20 PM Response to Reply #112 |
116. Of course you do |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:15 PM Response to Reply #64 |
109. They may be credentialed... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:38 PM Response to Reply #109 |
119. According to whom? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:45 PM Response to Reply #119 |
120. Ultimately all decisions like this... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:08 PM Response to Reply #120 |
125. I'm fully aware |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:11 PM Response to Reply #125 |
126. Are you referring to the Equitable Life Insurance building? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
procopia (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:15 PM Response to Reply #126 |
127. Thanks for that admission |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:23 PM Response to Reply #127 |
128. I thought I admitted it back then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 06:09 AM Response to Reply #16 |
24. Why should anyone have to answer this question? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 07:52 AM Response to Reply #24 |
29. The title of the paper in question is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:10 AM Response to Reply #29 |
30. You really should contact the authors of the paper |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:59 AM Response to Reply #29 |
34. This nanothermite goes to 11. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:47 AM Response to Reply #34 |
41. Sounds like the title of a truther youtube video |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 09:00 AM Response to Reply #24 |
35. What is inert thermite? Is there any such thing? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:10 AM Response to Reply #35 |
37. No there is no such thing. Why would you even ask? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:33 AM Response to Reply #37 |
47. I ask because "Active" Thermite is just thermite. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:44 AM Response to Reply #47 |
52. "active, unreacted thermitic material" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:56 AM Response to Reply #52 |
56. But thermitic material is indeed thermite, correct? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tetedur (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 02:38 PM Response to Reply #56 |
67. Is all thermitic material thermite? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 06:21 AM Response to Original message |
26. Self delete. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:30 AM Response to Original message |
44. Why did the NIST refuse to do testing for explosives? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:32 AM Response to Reply #44 |
46. Why would they do that? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:36 AM Response to Reply #46 |
48. The NIST tested for explosives in the 1993 WTC attacks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:37 AM Response to Reply #48 |
49. They did? I'd like to see that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:38 AM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Are you suggesting that explosives were not the cause |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:43 AM Response to Reply #50 |
51. Please go reread my post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:54 AM Response to Reply #51 |
55. The official reason given for the 1993 attack |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:57 AM Response to Reply #55 |
57. I think you're missing my point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:50 AM Response to Reply #46 |
53. Any competent investigation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:51 AM Response to Reply #53 |
54. Why would the NIST be the agency responsible? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 11:57 AM Response to Reply #54 |
58. The NIST were placed in charge of investigating |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:02 PM Response to Reply #58 |
59. Why would they test for explosives... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:04 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. What an absurd question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:11 PM Response to Reply #60 |
61. Apparently you haven't read the relevant sections of the reports. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:19 PM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Nothing but wild, baseless speculation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 12:43 PM Response to Reply #62 |
65. their observations are perfectly valid, rr... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 03:13 PM Response to Reply #65 |
68. Unless you have x-ray vision |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 03:34 PM Response to Reply #68 |
69. you've got to be kidding...right? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 03:36 PM Response to Reply #69 |
70. We're talking about what caused the collapse |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 03:46 PM Response to Reply #70 |
71. because establishing where it started would be necessary... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 03:52 PM Response to Reply #70 |
72. try this, maybe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 04:26 PM Response to Reply #72 |
73. First of all |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:04 PM Response to Reply #73 |
75. All thermite works on the same chemical principals (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:27 PM Response to Reply #75 |
77. All explosives do not work on the same chemical principles |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:30 PM Response to Reply #77 |
79. the thermite thing.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:47 PM Response to Reply #79 |
80. Notice the weasel language |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:52 AM Response to Reply #80 |
99. Definitely... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:09 PM Response to Reply #99 |
108. I read that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:13 PM Response to Reply #108 |
139. The sad thing is.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 08:59 PM Response to Reply #77 |
312. thermite is not an explosive (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:28 PM Response to Reply #75 |
78. thermite and thermate are fairly different.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 10:37 PM Response to Reply #78 |
87. No - both are incendiaries |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:46 AM Response to Reply #87 |
98. You can't always trust wiki... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 08:05 AM Response to Reply #98 |
100. I trust it more than Jones |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:25 PM Response to Reply #100 |
117. A pyrotechnic is something that goes boom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 05:55 PM Response to Reply #117 |
131. That last sentence makes no sense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:28 PM Response to Reply #131 |
133. the 'it was molten aluminum' hypothesis has been debunked by Jones... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:07 PM Response to Reply #133 |
137. You are confused |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:44 AM Response to Reply #137 |
186. The flowing molten aluminum may have been caused by thermite... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 03:43 PM Response to Reply #186 |
204. Or caused by the fires in the tower. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:27 PM Response to Reply #133 |
217. "we performed experiments with molten aluminum" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 09:06 PM Response to Reply #131 |
142. How do you know it is aluminum? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:07 PM Response to Reply #142 |
146. Similarly, how do you know it is steel? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 07:37 PM Response to Reply #146 |
230. I never t said it was steel |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:25 PM Response to Reply #142 |
147. We have evidence of temperatures in the pile |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:28 PM Response to Reply #142 |
149. And you can prove it was steel? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:45 AM Response to Reply #149 |
187. Here you go... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:57 AM Response to Reply #187 |
190. That's anecdotal evidence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 07:51 PM Response to Reply #149 |
231. Again, where did I say it was molten steel?? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:10 PM Response to Reply #100 |
138. The fact that you give a one or the other answer... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:18 PM Response to Reply #138 |
140. But it still does not explain why you need thermate in the first place |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:28 AM Response to Reply #140 |
171. thermate is apparently quieter, for one.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:35 AM Response to Reply #171 |
175. "it doesn't explode the way normal explosives do" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:00 AM Response to Reply #175 |
178. You may want to see some of the experiments Steven Jones has done.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:56 AM Response to Reply #178 |
189. Jones had actual samples of nano-thermite? From what source did he obtain them? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:14 PM Response to Reply #189 |
200. Hey Dutch Boy, Where Are Your Commonly Occuring Exploding Paint Chips... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:36 PM Response to Reply #200 |
218. The question is, does Jones have any |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:19 AM Response to Reply #218 |
224. See Post #150. David L. Griscom Is An Obvious Nutter (Not!)... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:53 AM Response to Reply #224 |
228. No, it's not a semantic argument |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:40 AM Response to Reply #171 |
176. ''the only way the buildings could have come down at that speed... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:05 AM Response to Reply #176 |
179. All the evidence has already been mentioned... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:53 AM Response to Reply #179 |
188. And since you've already posted that here and are cutting and pasting it again... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hack89 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 03:35 PM Response to Reply #171 |
203. So what pulverized the concrete and disintegrated the top |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 01:56 PM Response to Reply #140 |
199. A Little Fire Strawman?... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 09:17 PM Response to Reply #138 |
143. Every time hack is proven wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 09:35 PM Response to Reply #138 |
144. Every time I hear the term "nano-thermite" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:23 AM Response to Reply #144 |
170. I'm sure people who thought the world was flat... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:30 AM Response to Reply #170 |
173. But did the "nano-thermite" have laser beams attached to their heads? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:58 AM Response to Reply #173 |
177. Focus on the subject at hand, please... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:09 AM Response to Reply #177 |
183. Why would we "admit" something that hasn't been proven true? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 07:31 PM Response to Reply #183 |
302. How much of the evidence have you seen? -nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 10:01 AM Response to Reply #78 |
104. Neither are technically explosive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:01 PM Response to Reply #104 |
136. Where you getting your information from? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 10:28 AM Response to Reply #136 |
240. Jim Hoffman may be a fantasic researcher |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 09:01 PM Response to Reply #73 |
84. well, no |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:19 PM Response to Reply #72 |
76. Here's what we should try. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 07:13 PM Response to Reply #76 |
81. Huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:57 PM Response to Reply #81 |
83. well, I'm not sure I understand the NIST here either |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LARED (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 09:58 PM Response to Reply #83 |
85. Ah I get the point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 08:55 PM Response to Reply #76 |
82. heck if I know |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 05:28 AM Response to Reply #82 |
89. Which leaves us where? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 05:56 AM Response to Reply #89 |
90. shrug |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 06:14 AM Response to Reply #90 |
91. If the question were already settled |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 07:30 AM Response to Reply #91 |
95. "there is controversy enough to warrant an investigation" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 08:33 AM Response to Reply #95 |
101. How much more controversy could there be, until an investigation is done? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 12:43 PM Response to Reply #101 |
106. huh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:06 AM Response to Reply #106 |
162. Don't agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:19 AM Response to Reply #162 |
163. I think you are missing the point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:48 AM Response to Reply #163 |
166. Here's my evidence. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
scott75 (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:07 AM Response to Reply #166 |
181. This looks especially suspicious if.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 12:53 PM Response to Reply #166 |
196. I don't agree with that premise, either |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 05:43 PM Response to Reply #196 |
209. OK, reviewing the subthread to see if I'm not listening carefully enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 08:40 PM Response to Reply #209 |
211. OK, let's see |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 10:05 PM Response to Reply #211 |
215. Here's another one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 05:55 AM Response to Reply #215 |
219. but, eomer... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 05:14 AM Response to Reply #219 |
232. You're right -- NIST should not have been expected to falsify that theory, or any other theory. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 06:13 AM Response to Reply #232 |
234. well, a couple of thoughts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 06:43 AM Response to Reply #234 |
235. Response. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 07:10 AM Response to Reply #235 |
236. OK |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 09:45 AM Response to Reply #235 |
238. If explosives or thermite were used... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OnTheOtherHand (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 09:53 AM Response to Reply #238 |
239. thanks for weighing in, and a question |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 11:38 AM Response to Reply #239 |
241. I read a good article on that somewhere -- I'll try to find it again (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 04:35 PM Response to Reply #238 |
242. Sorry, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 07:01 PM Response to Reply #242 |
243. Sure |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Apr-29-09 09:02 PM Response to Reply #243 |
244. Actually, the best description is elsewhere. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 09:05 AM Response to Reply #244 |
246. No, that is not the best description; it's very misleading |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 05:08 PM Response to Reply #246 |
248. The piece that you quoted is spin, not concrete facts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 09:43 PM Response to Reply #248 |
250. But he said he DID collect samples, at the scrap yard |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 06:54 AM Response to Reply #250 |
251. Yes, the story does hold water. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 09:31 AM Response to Reply #251 |
254. Nope, dont' think so |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 10:37 AM Response to Reply #254 |
255. I'm just not interested in these indirect approaches. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 01:08 PM Response to Reply #255 |
264. That's exactly what I've been saying |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-03-09 11:34 AM Response to Reply #254 |
304. Umm...Bill...What's The Name Of Sibel Edmonds' Book? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:34 PM Response to Reply #62 |
113. It isn't baseless or wild. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:49 PM Response to Reply #113 |
121. The thing is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:56 PM Response to Reply #121 |
122. In this case, jberryhill is more capable of refuting the JONES paper. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:29 PM Response to Reply #122 |
201. But Don't You Think "They" Would Have Secretly Tested For Efficacy 1st? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 02:41 PM Response to Reply #201 |
202. I see what you mean. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 03:54 PM Response to Reply #202 |
205. Well Yeah, It's Like Positing... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 04:01 PM Response to Reply #205 |
206. You might want to repost your #200 without the personal attack. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 05:07 PM Response to Reply #206 |
207. "Dutch Boy" Was A Brand Of Ordinary Housepaint, DB=Paint Chips Get It? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:02 PM Response to Reply #207 |
210. It's a blatant personal attack. Apologize or find your bickering elsewhere. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:24 PM Response to Reply #210 |
213. ? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Fainter (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 11:00 PM Response to Reply #122 |
216. Am I Missing Something Here... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-28-09 09:33 AM Response to Reply #216 |
227. I think I see your problem. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vincent_vega_lives (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat Apr-25-09 05:02 PM Response to Reply #58 |
74. Ah No "genious" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rollingrock (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 03:57 PM Response to Reply #74 |
123. Yeah, well |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:08 PM Response to Reply #123 |
124. For some reason, I thought the FBI did test for explosives. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rhymeandreason (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 04:12 AM Response to Original message |
88. Hoffman has also provided an imaginative and ludicrous |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-26-09 02:38 PM Response to Reply #88 |
115. Yes, this was quite foolish. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rhymeandreason (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 06:22 AM Response to Reply #115 |
164. Hoffman's scenario does seem divorced from reality. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AZCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-27-09 09:14 AM Response to Reply #164 |
184. I don't know why he advanced it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 01:21 PM Response to Original message |
247. Nobody believes this. Nobody believes this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Apr-30-09 07:11 PM Response to Reply #247 |
249. A Brief Note On Paints, Mr. Boffin, You May Find Interesting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 07:41 AM Response to Reply #249 |
252. So you are calling for investigation? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 11:33 AM Response to Reply #252 |
257. Well, it's a good thing the paint was under the fireproofing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri May-01-09 11:51 AM Response to Reply #252 |
258. Hardly, Sir, Certainly Not On This Line |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 08:30 AM Response to Reply #258 |
284. Then you must believe these questions have already been answered: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William Seger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 09:20 AM Response to Reply #284 |
287. Jones' chips have much less energy density than paper |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 10:07 AM Response to Reply #287 |
290. OK, thanks. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Magistrate (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sat May-02-09 11:50 AM Response to Reply #284 |
296. Not One Of Those Questions, Sir, Bears On The Topic At Hand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun May-03-09 07:04 AM Response to Reply #296 |
303. One of them definitely does bear on the topic at hand. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Twist_U_Up (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu May-07-09 06:55 AM Response to Original message |
305. Holy OCT diversion!! This scares the zombies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eomer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-10-09 04:22 PM Response to Original message |
309. Is the red rusproofing paint on WTC steel ruled out as a source of the chips? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 22nd 2023, 11:47 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC