WTC Collapses

you can't be serious. :bugeye:

my "good" machine fried the mainboard, gonna cost me something like $250 bucks. i'll have it back sometime before the middle of next month.
by all rights my current machine should play videos because it's a 400mhz pentium 2 with a rage turbo graphics card.
i'm beginning to think i have some sort of shared I/O problem with it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I remember that song, I'd never seen the video though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i liked the green box at the bottom "is being wrong an option" - it has no "yes" pathway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how could you remember it? you are still in high school.

 

sure...he is very trustworthy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i have not lied to you. the government told you that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

so you believe the one that has lied to you, and you distrust the one who has not lied to you. that is fucked up.

 

he did have WMD's. you are right about your lying though. maybe you are not lying and you believe the conspiracy but in this instance i just consider the facts.

 

he did not have wmd in 2003. it was common knowledge outside of the US/UK mainstream media. they lied to you. the guy (Kamel) that escaped iraq told the UN that "Hussein had chemical weapons, but they were all destroyed in 1992". the US/UK media removed the last bit and only printed "Hussein has chemical weapons". if it were not for some german friends that showed me this at the time, i'd never have known it either.

 

I dont know if Kamel lied or not but take a look at the times Saddam DID use WMD's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

how do you know?

 

let's keep this about 9-11 shall we.

 

what type of weapons do you think he had in 2003?
he had no weapons production facilities, he was under sanctions for 10 years with UN inspection teams crawling his country - the UN weapons inspectors knew there was no production facility, it would be impossible to hide. any weapons that the US sold to him prior to 1992 had a very short shelf life - a matter of months, so anything he had in 1992 would not work in 2003. Scott Ritter, US marine and UN weapons inspector was consistantly saying this in 2002 and 2003. The fact that none have been found is evidence don't you think? if he had any weapons, he'd have used them in the war don't you think?

ok, sorry.

 

you are very selective in your information. many countries produce and sell chemicals. he also had plenty of time to move any weapons out of the country.

 

The intensity of the WTC fires and the evidence of thermite use.

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

Not necessarily. Where people will go at any given point in time is frequently dependent on a whole bunch of things. Perhaps she felt that she had the best chances of being rescued if she went towards the opening in the building. Regardless, I have never actually denied that she was trying to escape heat, even though I have seen no evidence to support this claim. I -would- like to see some evidence to your claim that the majority of the fuel was not only pushed back towards the other side of the building as well as your theory that anything more then a 'fireball was here' type of thing. That is, that it did anything other then happen briefly, leaving little fire behind and less structural damage.

Found it on page 15. Alright, so there was still a bit of fire left, but I still maintain that it was nothing like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The bowing has been disputed by the alternate theorists. However, there has been no categoric denial. However, the evidence that there was aluminothermic reactions even before the collapse points to the possibility that this was quite possibly due to thermite or a derivative.

Also apparently one of the strongest in the world...

Only in NIST's tweaked computer simulations could someone even imagine such a possibility. Perhaps some members of NIST realized that simulating the actual collapse instead of leaving it at 'poised for collapse' would have stressed their tweaked model beyond endurace.

The falling molten metal is not a baseless, desperate rationalization. It's a fact and you know it. I believe that the most likely explanation is that it was molten iron from an aluminothermic reaction. However, as I have mentioned in a previous post I can't yet disprove your assertions that it was, say, lead. I am pleased that you atleast admit the possibility that molten iron was involved. What you may not have realized is that by admitting this possibility it logically follows that you should admit to the possibility that aluminothermic reactions indeed took place before the collapse.

No, I'm trying to point out to you the very real possibility that it was used and not just used during the collapse, but also before the collapses took place.

 

Thermite: Developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

 

You really should be a little more careful with your excerpts there John. Let's take a look at that excerpt in context:
Thermite welding is the process of igniting a mix of high energy materials, (which is also called thermite), that produce a molten metal that is poured between the working pieces of metal to form a welded joint. It was developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding, or other uses of the thermite-type reactions, see the main thermite article.

You may also want to take a look at the following article:
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan

 

What are you trying to say?

 

plus this has already been discussed. read this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130225

 

Ryan Mackey vs. Kevin Ryan

This post is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

I'm going to add a bit to your quotes to give it more context...

Ryan Mackey writes:

Kevin Ryan counters this in his paper, "The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey":

Ryan Mackey continues:

Kevin Ryan counters:

Kevin Ryan counters a bunch more of Ryan Mackey's claims. If you'd like to take a look at his counters, feel free to read the above linked article. I don't pretend to understand their discussion; it's a step beyond me at this point.

 

Now were back to thermite, when a few hundred posts ago you were espousing nano-thermite:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108091