Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: Iarnrod on 16 Jan 2010 14:28 On Jan 16, 11:07 am, CoalMineCanary <george...(a)toast.net> wrote: > In article > <aa211f53-41cf-464a-95f1-7410476d6...(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, > > Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > I pointed them out over an over and over and over. > > Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job.\ > Some just can't believe it. Everyone knows you're smoking crack.
From: john on 16 Jan 2010 14:28 On Jan 16, 1:17 pm, ady...(a)panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <8Dl4n.24069$AO4.20...(a)newsfe02.iad>, > > > > > > Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > >Al Dykes wrote: > >> In article <1e3c548e-d6e2-46db-835a-505fceadb...(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > >> <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On Jan 8, 4:51=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On Jan 8, 1:08=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >>>>> Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the > >>>>> demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have > >>>>> turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams. > >>>>> And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING. > >>>> WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie. > > >>> So were about 14 other buildings. > >>> Many had much more damage and fires than WTC 7. > > >> WTC1, 2, and 7 were unigue. All the others has effective fireproofing. > > >Yep. They were insulated with asbestos. > > Not to code. > > -- > Al Dykes > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You and loonrot gotta be getting paid. You are indefatiguable (look it up
From: Peter Webb on 16 Jan 2010 19:12
<knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7b810cc9-b582-4d9b-8285-077d971fd4ef(a)r19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jan 15, 5:06 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > At last, some semblance of reality on the subject of thermite. > > For the record: > > 1. No "thermite" was found in the debris. Ingredients for thermite were > found, but these are simply Aluminium and Iron Oxide. Aluminium aircraft > hits steel framed building, of course there is going to be Al and FeO3 in > the ashes, the surprising thing would be if there was no Al or FeO3 in the > debris, as this would indicate either no aircraft or the the buildings > steel > frame had disappeared. > > 2. Thermite is not explosive. It does not release gasses, and hence expand > in size, so generates no explosive force at all. > > 3. Thermite is (as its name implies) a reaction which causes heat. As you > point out, to generate enough heat to melt the girders a huge quantity of > thermite would be needed. Not a "nano-spray", but many kgs of the stuff in > a > ceramic container so it remained attached to the girders while the (quite > slow) reaction proceeded. Thermite generates much less heat per gram than > burning kerosene/avgas; as there was 50 tons of burning avgas already, you > would need a couple of hundred tons of the stuff to make any real > difference > to the heat of the conflagration. > > 4. If you want to "cut" steel girders, then thermite is completely > hopeless. > Its not explosive, so it can't be used as a cutting agent. You use much > smaller quantities of very high explosive, for example shaped charges of > C4. > > 5. There were undoubtedly traces of paper in the debris. That is mostly > cellulose, one of the two ingredients in nitrocellulose, a high explosive > far more suited to demolition. Instead of going on about the ingredients > for > thermite being found in the debris, 9/11 kooks should go on about the > debris > containing cellulose, the main ingredient of the powerful explosive > nitro-cellulose. There is the same evidence for nitro-cellulose as > thermite, > and at least you could (in theory at least) cut steel beams with > nitro-cellulose if you had enough of it and could build containment > structures for the explosives. Sure, sure..... http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM _______________________________ Thankyou. As the reference you have cited shows, the residue/ashes from 9/11 contained a huge number of different chemicals. These confirm the existence of both Aluminium (the material from which aircraft are mostly made) and Iron oxide (it was a steel framed building). This is pretty clear evidence that whatever crashed into the WTC contained a lot of aluminium, and the WTC itself contained steel. Interestingly, the reference did not find any explosives residues at all in the ashes. The existence of both Aluminium and Iron oxide in the ashes, and the complete lack of explosives residues, is pretty strong confirmation that whatever hit the WTC contained a lot of Aluminium and that there was a fire. You can interpret the complete lack of explosives residues in the ashes however you like. This paper would seem to kill the idea that explosives were used stone-dead; no evidence or residue of explosives was found whatsoever. Again, thanks for the link. |