Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....



As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?


Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.





I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
theory. LOL!!

It is called science.
Examine the facts and come to conclusions.

You might try it some time


You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 02:48:43 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....

Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....



As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?


Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.

But you claim it was present above ?
Which is it ?
Fact or theory ?




I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
theory. LOL!!

It is called science.
Examine the facts and come to conclusions.

You might try it some time


You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

I have read through "Dr" Jones paper.
He makes several leaps of imagination to put his theory together.
Dr Jones is imprecise in his use of terminology.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Wake Up! wrote:
Tank Fixer wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT,
Wake Up! attempted to say .....



As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel?
Yes. Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at
the WTC? Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos?
Yes. Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.
Really, so you have PROOF of it I guess ?


Of course not. That's why 20 yr experienced Physics Professor Steven
Jones PhD calls his paper a hypothesis.




I love the way you deniers aren't able to take everything into
context, and instead give silly reasons for each and every piece of
information, so you can hold on to your absurd government conspiracy
theory. LOL!!
It is called science.
Examine the facts and come to conclusions.

You might try it some time


You obviously don't know the illogical/unrealistic steps the government
took to "prove" their absurd claims. You should consider looking into it
before commenting. Start by reading and understanding Jones' paper. Not
taking the time to do this demonstrates a predetermination to consider
controlled demolitions at the WTC implausible and not worth examining.
And if that's the case, I need not spend time responding further.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

No matter how many times you change your name, no matter how many
times you present the same garbage, you still don't understand what you
are talking about and will still wind up throwing a tantrum and stomping
off. Please stop wasting your time and do some real research of your own.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
excerpt from Dr Jones' paper regarding experiment performed:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and
then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray
color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten
metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT
molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal
(video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too
high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.) This
is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high
reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear
silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity)
will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal
dirpping from the South Tower just before its collapse

Prof. Jones sounds a lot like Cmdr. Donaldson, no disrespect intended to the
late Cmdr.

Paul Nixon

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

"Jase Vanover" wrote:

Occam's Razor. Look it up.

Brain Damage. Look it up.

"Wake Up!" wrote

As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

In article ,
on Sun, 12 Mar 2006 00:25:18 -0500,
Scott M. Kozel attempted to say .....

"Jase Vanover" wrote:

Occam's Razor. Look it up.

Brain Damage. Look it up.

Is that what the "Wake Up" is suffering from....


"Wake Up!" wrote

As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Tank Fixer wrote:

Scott M. Kozel attempted to say .....
"Jase Vanover" wrote:

Occam's Razor. Look it up.

Brain Damage. Look it up.

Is that what the "Wake Up" is suffering from....

Most likely.


"Wake Up!" wrote

As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

Can other things partially evaporate steel? Yes.

One of those things is the steel catching on fire, with enough airflow and a
heat upwards of 1500 degrees, steel burns; in the absence of pure oxygen this
process will be uneven, resulting in partial burning (or evaporation). Flame
cutting is a machining process where steel is heated to the kindling temperature
with a torch, the torch is stopped and then the cut is blasted with oxygen,
nothing else. A continuous line can be cut to any length as the burn is
self-sustaining due to the massive heat released as steel burns, saving costs as
no fuel gas is expended during the cutting. In some cutting systems, propane is
used as a pre-heat gas, the same propane you use in a backyard barbecue grill.

But you've been told this before and you've ignored it before. Just not in
this particular newsgroup.

Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes.

Could other things cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes, jet fuel for one thing, a burning office building for another.

Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

Can other things cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
Given 80 tons of aluminum and a massive building fire, I can cause all kinds of
dripping metal.

Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Correleation does not prove causation no more than the following is "proved".

Do ice cream sales go up in summer? Yes.
Do more people drown in summer? Yes.

Ice cream causes drownings.

But in your tiny little world, contrary evidence doesn't exist since you
started with a "fact" and only accept things which support that "fact" to
intrude on your own private reality.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 20:59:45 -0700, "khobar" wrote:

Can a nuclear reaction partially evaporate steel? Yes. Could a nuclear
reaction cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC? Yes. Can a
nuclear reaction cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were these
three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Oops...

Paul Nixon

The amusing thing about that is that "TRUTH" presented a "paper" from a
"Finnish military expert" who claimed that the WTC was a controlled demolition.
"TRUTH" jumped on it like a drowning man clutches a life preserver. What
"TRUTH" didn't do was see exactly what this "miltiary expert" claimed as the
explosive in other pages on his site; tiny thermonuclear bombs, possibly ignited
by anti-matter.