Firefighter Describes "Molten Metal" at Ground Zero, like a "Foundry"
GeorgeWashington Thu, 11/16/2006 - 1:01pm
This video shows a firefighter describing molten metal flowing at ground zero, and says it was like a "foundry".
For context, see this essay. Thanks to FeO for the heads up!
- Login to post comments
nice find.
nice find.
Wait a minute...
Judy Wood says the space beam weapons used to destroy the towers didn't create any molten steel and there wasn't any molten metal at ground zero, so these firefighters must be lying. **dripping with sarcasm**
Who is Judy Wood anyway ?
Are you trying to tell us that the smoke that rose from ground zero for weeks and/or months did not come from the three hot pockets that showed up under each of the 3 buildings that were brought down by controlled demolition is a figment of our imagination and that the thermal photos are doctored ?
I was being completely sarcarstic...
Judy Wood claims space beams were used to destroy the Twin Towers. No, I'm not kidding. See the discussion here:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4449
ahhh the Woods particle beam
ahhh the Woods particle beam team theory...who cares what that hack has to say.
WOW. Of course we know where this molten steel came from...
Thanks to popular mechanics, who assure us that the fact that the rubble pile fires were covered means they were not cooled by the air. This means, according to PM, that they could get hotter and hotter and hotter and hotter until BOOM--the melting point of steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit) was reached by the burning office chairs and paper. I know it sounds nutty, but John McCain signed off on their book, so it must be true--he's a straight shooter after all.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
it doesn't matter what it
it doesn't matter what it was. If it was hot enough to glow and flow like lava the energy came from a source greater than office fires. Sorry bud. I'm not in the mood for people like you. Go fuck yourself man.
Anonymous, where are you getting your information?
And if it's that bogus "fire engineering" webpage from the "University of Manchester" then please try to corroborate it somewhere else. Normal building fires generate temperatures of 2000 degrees F??? What the Fahrenheit?! You need to check that buddy. Aluminum is silvery when molten, not orange hot like lava (as mentioned by the firefighter) or well, molten steel. Is lava silvery now? These aren't facts that embarrass us, these are facts that you can't explain with your evil muslim fixation blocking your thought processes. Why not be honest and desire the whole truth like we do? Why do you think it's OK to deceive yourself about basic scientific facts? Have you even read the FEMA report? Start with appendix C, where they talk about the odd melting of steel from building 7. They also found sulfidation on melted parts of that steel. Sulfur is used in thermate to make the steel melt at a lower temperature. Why can't you address these issues?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
OK.... hydrocarbon fires
OK.... hydrocarbon fires reach maximum temps..... don't you need a constant oxygen source for this?
Fires burried under rubble..... where's the common sense?
stop it with the common sense!
SMOTHERED fires increase in temperature the longer they stay covered, dude. According to Popular Mechanics, anyway. Which is why your oven always melts any time you try to cook your thanksgiving turkey. Get a clue! :)
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
if you're so indignant could you cite sources?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
can you prove what the firemen saw was steel?
no
but - you insult anyone who questions your assessment.
YOU are the one making unsupportable claims.
You mean other than the fact
You mean other than the fact that the firemen actually used the words "molten steel"? Watch the video again. I think you missed it.
Why do you need to prove it when there is no other possible
explanation? How do you define proof? Isn't a logical conclusion proof? Like if I said prove gravity exists, and you drop a ball and say--there, gravity exists, otherwise why did the ball not just float in the air. Ahh, I say but you haven't proved the existence of gravity. Unless I can show that something else is creating the illusion of gravity where in fact there is none, why should you need to prove that it's gravity? It is self-evident, just like when you pull out a steel beam that is dripping on one end--you can speculate as to an alternate explanation, but it is pointless to do so when the obvious explanation fits the rest of the available evidence (like the clear destruction of the core of the towers by an explosive force.) Now of course you will say prove it was an explosive force and not gravity, and I will point out the huge steel beams that were launched outwards and embedded themselves in a building 400 feet away. But that won't satisfy you either, and that speaks volumes about your sincerity. You will just say, well, that's the compressed air. It makes no sense but you will pretend it does. Anyone can play that game.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The same way you ASSUME it is not...
because you don't want it to be. In my opinion, both sides of this arguement are speculating. We say it is likely molten steel, which we have no way to prove with 100% assurance and the debunkers say it is not likely, or at least point out there are other possible explanations. This doesn't mean we are wrong people. Anon, do you at least think it is POSSIBLE this COULD be molten steel?
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
Empirical Evidence
Once again I must ask that you provide the source of the existing empirical evidence. There are thousands of tonnes of evidence in the WTC debris in local dumps. Can you find out who I can talk to, so that I may gain access to this evidence?
.
A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but can’t afford an air force. ~ William Blum
I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world, in the field of advertising, and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency. Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious. I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours and we tend to disbelieve ours. ~ A U.S. based Soviet correspondent
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~ Aristotle
Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority. ~ Leon Battista Alberti
I sometimes think that God in creating man somewhat overestimated his ability. ~ Oscar Wilde
This asswipe (anon) has nothing
But denial, he has yet to make even ONE single intelligent point.
Obviously to anyone not delusional, Aluminum can not possibly stay molten for weeks as any child knows it cools off extremely quick and it does not glow orange/red in daylight.
There is no possible way that office fires fueled by fire retardant furniture various office supplies and Kerosene could even remotely get to any 2000 degrees F, that is complete bullshit.
Carbon based fires can not attain over 1800 degrees F MAX and that is WITH force fed oxygen at just the right amounts which obviously did not happen here, these fires were clearly oxygen starved and mostly extinguished from the 1000s of gallons of water dumped on it from the sprinkler system as can be seen without any doubt by the thick black smoke, soot.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/wp_wtc4.jpg
Even NIST report admitted they found no evidence the fires reached much over 600 degrees C, not to mention they only burned for less than an hour.
So burning that short a duration it really would not have mattered even IF the fires reached OVER 2000 F.
Fire temp does not translate to STEEL TEMP by any stretch of the imagination.
500 Tons of thick construction grade steel all interconnected is a huge heat sink/radiator means the steel would dissipate heat very well.
In order for ANY fire to produce molten steel that remains molten for weeks it would have to be well in excess of 4000 degrees F AND have a catalyst to keep the heat generating, that catalyst is obviously Thermate.
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned MUCH longer (over 3 hours)and MUCH hotter that started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th.
The reason that fire burned longer and hotter is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system and it started in the middle of the night. It burned at least 65% of the 11th floor.
There was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned hotter as was seen by fire fighters as most all the windows on the 11th floor blew out which means the fire attained at least 1300 degrees F.
On 9/11 this did not happen thus the fire never reached 1300 F.
The 1975 fire also burned 3X longer, there was no water to slow it down or put it out and no fire stopper material in several gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through.
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour.
We also know that 1000s of gallons of water was dumped on the fire, when water hits fire it vaporizes, the volume of water vapor is 1700 times greater than liquid water thus for every 1 gallon of water 1700 gals of vapor was created to displace oxygen, this creates soot and even the soot itself displaces oxygen and helps put the fire out.
This is "Empirical Evidence" and irrefutable.
and I myself have been part of the scientific community (marine biologist) for 23 years, I am perfectly aware of the scientific method and what constitutes empirical evidence as I have used it for 23 years now, I have taken 4, IQ test in my life and the "lowest" score was 136.
So put that in your pipe & smoke it.
But Thermite(ate) reaction yields Iron
Why are you arguing it was molten steel? A thermite reaction yields molten iron.
I'm not sure myself what the molten metal consisted of. And wouldn't be surprised if it *was* steel. Since I don't believe it was thermite(ate) that could've done all the damage.
The large chunks remaining as debris were iron? That was my understanding. But I don't really know.
My question was always where did the iron oxide come from, in the requisite quantities, to enable such a large reaction? Thermite needs iron oxide. And were did the AL come from, in requisite quantities, to create the huge pools of supposedly molten iron?
Please explain to be what you believe happened. I don't believe the narrative of either Woods or Jones is clear. At least not to me.
steel is iron with some carbon added
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
can you disprove what the
can you disprove what the firemen saw was steel?
I don't think anyone needs to dis-prove it
Since it wasn't proven.
It was simply an assertion.
He may have seen molten metal. And I believe he did. But unless tests were done on it or some was saved to test later, I have no reason to believe his assertion.
Is he a metalurist or a person with a reason to have specific knowledge of molten metals? Most of us are not.
Maybe he just assumed it since the building is made, for the most part, of steel. It's a reasonable assumption. But that doesn't mean it's true.
All this is one man's word for it.
He could just be mistaken.
I could look at a tree in the park and say, "I see an Aspen" and be wrong. Unless I'm a tree specialist, why particularly should I know that?
if someone is in doubt to my statement they can check it themselves. And in no way would I be offended if someone didn't take my word for it.
I'm still seeing a tree. And I'm not meaning to mis-speak or lie. I simply don't know. And don't know I don't know. I think I know and I don't.
Happens all the time.
:)
If I could question the firefighter myself I could have a better idea if he is right or wrong in his assumption:
1. Did someone tell him it was steel?
2. Why does he think it is steel?
3. Does he have reason to know he temp. of the molten metal?
I have no idea why anyone would assume he is right in saying what kind of molten metal it is.
well there are certain facts
number one we know it is NOT Aluminum.
We know it was glowing red/orange hot and that is was positively metal.
whether it was steel or whatever other metal is really a moot point, fact remains that there is no way ANY metal would be glowing red hot for days because of a carbon based fire PERIOD.
another source
For this is the book Aftermath, which is a big officially sanctioned book of pictures of the cleanup. it talks about the workers pulling out a beam from the pile and then having the pile explode with ash and dust from below because of the oxygen that seeped in. In other words, what you had was pockets of molten steel that were smoldering there with no need for oxygen since the metal was already melted by thermite which even works underwater, fyi, since it is a self sustaining reaction (the oxygen is provided by the iron-oxide) When air was let in by pulling a beam out the oxygen in the air would ignite from the extreme temperature suddenly exposed to it. Kind of like when you blow or use a bellows on a log that is glowing orange and make a flame appear.
Also in that book you see that when they cut the steel as part of the clean up, they used regular little torches, NOT thermite to cut it.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
If air could reach the fires
If air could reach the fires then couldn't the air cool the fires and thus wouldn't Popular Mechanics explanation fail?
News Flash
This just released..... survival manual.... if you are stranded and have no matches and need to start a fire to stay warm...
Gather all the wood your can find...... then bury it
rubbing two stick together is out....
so much for everything you learned in the Boy Scouts
there WAS a shopping mall
which was destroyed along with everything else that ended up in the rubble pile. Why do you persist in looking for reasons to say it wasn't steel that melted when people who were there have said that they pulled out pieces of the steel structure that were red hot and dripping? Why are you trying to say it could have been something else when there is no need, no doubt about what it was? How can you claim that you're interested in a fair assessment of the evidence if part of your method is to look for reasons why documented evidence is not what it clearly is? What possible sense is there in that, if you are, as you claim to be, interested in learning the truth with the rest of us? Simple. You are a liar and can't back up any of your speculation. Did you understand, for example, that steel IS iron, with carbon added? Why do you keep suggesting it may have been iron instead? That makes NO sense. And lead?? Where was lead used in the building's construction? Lead is toxic!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The mall was not destroyed
That's disinformation.
you're right--people were shopping in it the next day in fact.
so what you're telling us is that under that rubble pile there was an intact shopping mall feeding oxygen to the fires. that's right up there with cartoon planes and beam weapons pal.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
immature response
again you put words in my mouth. there were complex tunnels under the wtc for the mall and path trains. the firemen explored these tunnels. even judy wood shows photos of the warner brother store recovered items. these tunnels fed oxygen to the fires much like a convection oven.
how do you know those tunnels fed oxygen to the fires?
were you there? did somebody report seeing oxygen? How do you know it was oxygen and not, say, nitrous oxide from the dentist offices that were in the WTC? That's just a taste of your own medicine.
As far as working like a convection oven, that STILL doesn't begin to explain how any of the fires tehre could have reached the temperature necessary to melt steel, or aluminum for that matter. So that is a straw man argument anyway.
Plus you would have to prove that the pockets of molten steel were all located in the vicinity of your alleged "oxygen tunnels"--good luck!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
i don't
but how do YOU know the tunnels did NOT feed oxygen?
you don't
but - you don't CARE to CONSIDER all the alternatives. you just push whatever facts suit your needs.
that's not science. it is JUNK SCIENCE
Here are firemen standing UNDER the fires
in the recesses that were under the wtc.
The mall was OK
Parts of the mall were intact.
Some people are very quick to label things "crazy" if they don't conform to their preconceptions.
If the malls were destroyed, why were the firefighters condemned for looting down there?
Looting Is Reported in Center's Tomblike Mall
Here are pictures from mall and tunnel spaces below the "collapse."
I wonder what other things people will harshly and highhandedly proclaim "insane,"
without bothering to know what they are talking about,
but will end up also proving to be true?
I will admit that the idea oxygen was fed into the burning rubble, enough to enable fires to become hot enough to produce molten metal, is absurd.
A smelting operation requires oxygen to fan the fire. It's not done under oxygen starved conditions.
(Same as if you want to demolish a building perfectly you don't haphazardly use Aluminum and kerosine.)
If you cover a fire it obviously smoulders and does not rage. The molten metal was caused, not after the fact, but initially, by whatever caused the pulverization and disintegration of the Towers at those high speeds.
News Flash
Fires oxygen fueled by Satans Bellows causing temperatures capable of melting steel....
and you know it was steel
And you know it was molten steel because you personally did a metallurgical study with the samples you took home?
Nope. Just another sarcastic opinion masquerading as fact.
and you know it "wasn't"
Molten steel because of what?
Your total ignorance and denial?
right, from your own source...
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/casting/foundry-practice.pdf
That's the part on casting aluminum. Notice all the aluminum in that document is silvery in its liquid state. Can you provide the link you used in context so we can see what the description of that picture is that you claim to be aluminum?
Insults? You mean like "poor spelling is a sign of a low IQ, or lack of expertiSe in the english language?" Like that, shill?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
a sure sign of a weak mind and low IQ indeed
That picture shows metal at at least 1080C. And seems to be requiring a furnace of sorts to get it to that temp. Maybe you and your high IQ can explain how building fires which do not get hot enough to make metal glow, left all this glowing and flowing metal?
Read my post below. Fires did not get above 600C according to NIST.
NIST?
you are using NIST as a source?
interesting.
so the molten steen was under 600 degrees?
hmmmm
Silly shill, NIST refers in its report to the fires, not steel.
Which is precisely why we assert that thermite or something similar was used to melt the steel. the jet fuel fires did not burn hot enough, according to NIST itself. The whole point of the NIST and FEMA reports is that they are mostly accurate and honest with facts--it's the conclusions they claim to be able to draw that are incomplete and/or suspect.
So yes, the point here is that steel did melt, but clearly not because of the jet fuel fires. We can't say we understand what happened to the buildings if we don't explain the molten steel. And if it wasn't molten steel, then why doesn't Popular Mechanics say so? Why do they make an absurd claim as to how they think it got there? Why not just say it wasn't steel? Hm?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I think you are intentionally stupid
as a way of discrediting everyone who seeks the truth.
Calling people shills and twisting people's questions and words makes you HARMFUL to goals of seeking the truth.
You in one post call NIST a coverup - and in the next use them as your sourse.
You assert YOU know all the truths about everything and beat down ANY attempts to even play devil advocate - to debate the issue - to SEE if what we are asserting is true./
Nico Haupt uses the word shill almost as much as you.
Its good company you keep.
Anon: you seem to have lost the whole view of this matters...
foreknwoledge, lack of air response, war games, wtc7, motive, lack of will to investigate, etc, etc, etc...
Having all this, when a person without any prejudice stumbles upon such evidence like molten metal he should definately call for another investigation... Think whatever you want, but don't "cover it up", ok?
that's right
why would the NIST talk about heat that somehow got metal to red hot tempertures when they are trying to explain the collapses in terms of a fire theory.
I think that's one of there ommissions of evidence among much selective presentation of the facts.
NIST ain't honest with facts.
They lie straight out.
And Fudge the data. And don't release the data their results are based upon.
They are in Magic-bullet land.
You Are Laughable.
Not an insult, just a fact.
http://8real.proboards104.com/index.cgi?board=phony&action=display&threa...
https://www.aws.org/cgi-bin/mwf/topic_show.pl?tid=9621
Thanks Big_D, no wonder John ignored requests for source of pic!
Just to be clear, the links BigD posted are in fact discussing the picture that John Albanese posted here as Anonymous claiming they showed molten aluminum glowing orange. See below from the thread BigD linked to. If anyone needs more proof that John Albanese is dishonest, and that his film Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime is a LIHOP piece of crap, I think this post and its discussion proves that beyond a doubt. see below:
I figured I would conclude this discussion because I have talked with Stephen D.Chastain (the person who took these 2 pictures)
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-2.jpg
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace.jpg
I can now safely say, I was right all a long, it is IRON. I am sorry if I took some of you for a wild ride but the person that presented these photos as "aluminum" is very intelligent and credible, so it was hard to disagree, but I did, and I was right!
Thank you guys for all your responses. I will probably be back to see what is going on every now and then. Maybe I will start another discussion Until then, God Bless and take care.
Brian
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
What "Anonymous"
What "Anonymous" demonstrated was that you fly off the handle when anyone questions CD. You're clearly emotionally invested in the theory and not rational on the subject.
And I think CD is a real possiblity, especially regarding WTC 7.
Denouncing the evidence of foreknowlege and the ISI connection is either a tactical error or a way intentional sabotage.
yes that was a bit rude
Here's a rude fact for you though
"NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600C" (NIST, 2005, pp176-177)
Even if did get to a 'blazing' 800C somehow (and building fires do not generally get above 650C) Melting metal and keeping it molten in a building fire is near impossible. I can't understand any scenario where the metal "just somehow" get's that hot and melts. Is there a directed flame on it? Contentious fuel heating it? Enough heat to get it that hot and keep it at that temp? Or doesn't the fuel in one spot burn off too fast and then it cools back down or the heat is simply wicked away. It takes a lot of human effort to melt these metals. Blast furnaces and refineries. You might burn some aluminum. You might see some globs. But rivers and lava of metal? I don't think so. And let alone large quantities, that stayed hot for days?
And now it's not steel? And now you're saying it was only aluminum that wasn't glowing hot, because the building fires instead created molten aluminum, SOMEHOW, and SOMEHOW firefighters with experience with high temperatures involved in fires thought it was glowing when it wasn't? I mean was it glowing or not? And isn't that important evidence? Steven Jones has photographs of them pulling metal out of this pile and the ends are yellow hot. Something happened there. That's evidence. You can't just go willy nilly looking at evidence and debunking each claim as if it exists as a singular claim.
Don't act like you're somehow telling smart people like myself and people who come here that we can't tell the difference between the effects of a building fire and an extraordinary event. This is real evidence and there's mounds of it. They did a sloppy job and they're going to get crucified for it, because people will stop believing in fairy tale bullshit.
The water that fails to
The water that fails to evaporate from concrete before it dries will also explode if it gets hot enough.
Burning jet fuel just might be enough to do the trick, don't you think?
Get a grip...
Simultaneously, symetrically all the way down through the entire structure... from the burning jet fuel... please, get a grip on reality.
You are joking?
I assume you are joking.
:)
get your facts straight please
Steel is made from iron, and iron melts at 2500 degrees fahrenheit. Aluminum on the other hand, melts at 1200. At this temperature aluminum is silvery. You can hear the firefighters comparing the metal to lava, which is red hot, like molten steel, not molten aluminum.
It's funny you talk about our "theories". What do you have on your side? Not even a theory. None of you shills can point to anyone, engineer, physicist--anyone--who can explain how your version of the collapse is possible. You all, without exception, say something like--the collapse began and nothing could stop it. You never bother to explain why nothing could stop it, because you can't. What would have stopped the collapse is the enitre undamaged structure under the collapsing top. But you use faith based science to explain away the presence of the massive undamaged core that somehow self-destructed under an amount of weight that it had borne with no problem for almost 40 years.
You falsely claim that the red hot liquid metal could be aluminum. you try to explain away multiple witnesses testimony to explosions going off all over the towers including the basements. You ignore completely the fact that a 300 ton set of beams from the outer structure of the north tower was flung almost 400 feet--that's farther than a football field, to embed itself in the AmEx building across the way with only gravity propelling it.
In other words, nothing about your story makes sense, and given the fact that building 7 ALSO collapsed, when no plane ever hit it, you would have us swallow a VERY tall tale. You are the one who is grasping at straws so as to prevent people from becoming informed about the obvious fallacies in the official explanation of the collapses, or in the case of building 7, the ABSENCE of an official explanation.
Just how long do you think you can keep these facts a secret? Everybody outside America knows, and more Americans are finfing out each day. Why do you persist in hanging on to a discredited and quite frankly abhorrent lie about the cause of the death of over 2000 of your fellow human beings? What possesses you to do that, day in day out?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
people who pretend not to understand clear facts are shills
A shill, for example, might say--you really should NOT suspect OJ of the murder of his wife just because he was fleeing the country with a disguise after she was murdered--that is just bigotry and bias on your part. I would call that person a shill, and most people would agree. you don't. Welcome to the free world, shill. Everyone is entitled to lie and be an ass.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
nope - i just challenged your claim that it was steel
you can't keep deflecting what i said to inttimidate me into not sharing opinions.
you consistently lie about what my opinions ARE.
O.J. was not fleeing
O.J. was not fleeing anything. His Bronco was parked normally, but things got interpreted in weird ways once the government/police got involved. While all along, someone who would never be suspected to murder had no alibi at all: Mark Fuhrman himself
It's a big analogy to 9/11 here.
- With O.J., people ask why would a cop that investigates a murder, be *himself* the murderer?
- With 9/11, people ask why would Bush who vowed to punish the attackers, be *himself* the attacker?
More info on OJ Truth inside here:
http://www.smartfellowspress.com/
are you joking?
OJ was driving down the freeway threatening to kill himself once the police were after him. If Fuhrman was working for anyone it was for OJ himself. Fuhrman seems to have planted the glove--WHY? Well, the effect was to discredit the prosecution's case. A great method for the defense--pay off one idiot who then gets to write a book and have a radio or tv show or whatever, and get your obviously guilty guy off the hook with a "reasonable doubt" that had no reason to exist in the first place.
This is pushing new limits in disinfo! Ha!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I, for example, respect your "beliefs" but don't agree with them
I just would like you to know that your point of view is based on belief, nothing more. (so you don't have this feeling that official version was scientifically proven, because it wasn't investigated properly! obstructions, omissions - terrible!)
Are you willing to base your knowledge about most important event of this century on belief?
Or maybe you would also welcome another, independent investigation, too?
????
“You can hear the firefighters comparing the metal to lava, which is red hot, like molten steel, not molten aluminum.”
Not true. At 1,400 degrees aluminum will glow. The fires at GZ could have burned as high as 2,000 degrees. I have provided you with a picture of glowing aluminum.
Further – there are OTHER metals such as lead and iron to account for. Your insistence that it was steel cannot be supported logically or scientifically.
“It's funny you talk about our "theories". What do you have on your side? Not even a theory. None of you shills can point to anyone, engineer, physicist--anyone--who can explain how your version of the collapse is possible.”
Again – the immature use of the word “shill” and strawman debates are out of line. I did not say anything at all about the building collapse. I just think loose theories and unsubstantiated claims such as yours discredit the controlled demolition theory because you just do not have your facts straight.
“ You all, without exception, say something like--the collapse began and nothing could stop it. You never bother to explain why nothing could stop it, because you can't”
Again, no one here challenged the collapse theory. You are just once again destroying a constructive debate on a LIMITED topic. What did those firemen see?
You seem to want to always upset the apple cart with your insults.
“You falsely claim that the red hot liquid metal could be aluminum. you try to explain away multiple witnesses testimony to explosions going off all over the towers including the basements.”
This is just a blatant lie. I said nothing about explosions.
“In other words, nothing about your story makes sense, and given the fact that building 7 ALSO collapsed, when no plane ever hit it, you would have us swallow a VERY tall tale.”
I told no tales. I simply pointed out that your assertion that the firemen were talking about molten STEEL is not supportable – given the available evidence. I could be wrong, but your attempts to mischaracterize my position is obnoxious, childish and intolerable.
“Just how long do you think you can keep these facts a secret? Everybody outside America knows, and more Americans are finfing out each day. Why do you persist in hanging on to a discredited and quite frankly abhorrent lie about the cause of the death of over 2000 of your fellow human beings?”
How old are you?
show us the context of the picture you provided, please
then we can talk about aluminum glowing orange. if you don't, why should we take you seriously?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Good job you guys! You guys
Good job you guys!
You guys totally crushed his weak theories well done!
He comes in here using insults then starts crying once we say stuff back to him and use his own sources to prove him wrong.
His only response was "Oh now I'm a shill"
Hopefully we woke him up but probably he just jumped to another thread to pick it apart until his theory is crushed again.
Good try, anon!!!
what theories
all i did was show that your assertions about molten steel are not proven.
i can effectively debate both sides of this issue.
my biggest problem is with the cherry picking of half-assed facts that i see here being passed off as science. its just bad from a credibility standpoint.
i believe 9/11 was an inside job - and i believe in controlled demolition.
i just don't believe you guys who post this shit are making the case well and in fact probably doing more harm than good by scaring away mature adults who can see right through this sort of half-assed insults and bullying and adolescent claims.
you guys are why we all get labeled tin-foil hat cponspiracy theorists. because you lack the technical and scienmtific CHOPS to make your case. you ASSUME too much and act childish when confronted with alternative theories or ideas.
this is bad. and its embarassing.
Anonymous...you silly bean
Molten aluminum? Are you an idiot?
Here is an image of the hot spots.....
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/hotspots-compare.jpg
See anything interesting? WT7 has hotspots as well...no plane hit that building...
where did your molten aluminum come from?
..jerk...please do some research before posting..
ANONYMOUS LEAD US TO THE LIGHT!
Please, good sir, tell us how we should present our facts. You did such a great job in this thread I just want to be JUST like you. You presented the facts in a way that the whole world will come around to 9/11 Truth. I'm just trying to find out how you did it that way. You, sir are amazing. I can't believe the time we've been wasting with our junk science and talking on this board.
Everyone, we have to model ourselves EXACTLY after this guy. He seems to have all the answers and knows exactly how to present it and says we're not doing a good enough job.
I say we elect him the official 9/11 truth movement leader and we use his foolproof methods to expose the truth.
I can't believe how build we all are!!!
ANONYMOUS YOU ARE OUR HERO!!!
The shill exposes himself
After reading this thread, the one point that makes me believe that 'the shill' is indeed that, is the fact that even after having been called upon twice to provide verification of his red-hot-glowing alu-pic, he has still not even responded with at least an acknowledgement of the request.
I also looked at the site from where his picture comes, and also found the alu-foundry article and noticed that molten alu in that article is silvery - just like Steven E. jones claims.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/casting/foundry-practice.pdf
The claim that alu can glow red, must so far be regarded as unsubstantiated.
The shill claims to be on the 'insidejob team' and to be working here for the cleansing of our research methodology and credibility.
However I find that hard to believe, given the rhetoric strategies used by the shill.
He clearly seems too be following the tired pattern of trying to wear a discussion out by constantly driving it out into the domains of the most obscure details.
I see no sincere constructive collaboration on the part of the shill.
Anonymous...you silly bean
Molten aluminum? Are you an idiot?
Here is an image of the hot spots.....
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/hotspots-compare.jpg
See anything interesting? WT7 has hotspots as well...no plane hit that building...
where did your molten aluminum come from?
..jerk...please do some research before posting..
Well there you have it
Testimony like this that can 100% establish molten metal proves CD. You cannot have any other scenario that creates molten metal. So bring it on, debunk this assholes and how about evaporated steel - which I heard about recently. I think that takes place above 2700C, if someone can conclusively show a piece of steel showing this type of evaporation. It's strong enough evidence to be essentially "Proved".
That was provided
even by FEMA of all places.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Here Judy
http://static.flickr.com/120/279514317_77de161f37.jpg?v=0
Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed area requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.
do you have a link to the
do you have a link to the album this is from on flickr?
Why indeed did the World
Why indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse (PDF)
Steven E. Jones, Phd
pg 18.
Journal of 9/11 Studies
cited from: http://www.liro.com/lironews.pdf
Thank you, for this clever post
Truth has to be worked to.
Asking questions is part of this work.
After all, not allowing to ask questions and ridiculing them
was "official version" promoters strategy, wasn't it?
Why would people from 9/11 Truth like to use the same strategy?
Think about it and fight for truth (with decent means).
we'll miss you John
Not really though, because we can only assume based on your priors that you'll be back--undercover of course, to contnue to "test" us.
As for what my contributions are to the truth movement, exposing you as a dishonest shill will have to rank way up there. No amount of self-righteous posturing is going to buy you back any credibility, with me anyway.
LIHOP is one of the most dishonest positions in the movement, and one of the most damaging. It is also sick because it plays into the sham "war on terror" and "clash of civilizations" by attempting to preserve the misplaced distrust of muslims in this whole narrative.
You have nothing to be proud of for spreading that kind of crap, understand? And lots to be ashamed of. All honest truthseekers who really do work their butts off FOR THE CORRECT SIDE will be vindicated when we overcome the stalling and obfuscation tactics of shills like you. The sloppiness of your tactics is just more proof of how close we're getting to that day.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
OK! Bye, already!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
John's right. You're a
John's right. You're a disruption and do a disservice to the arguments you put forward. Stop it.
Ajohnymous has again misspelled expertiSe
So Mr. Albanese, is it a coincidence that you and the anonymous shill in this post both spell the word expertise with a Z instead of an S? Just a coincidence I'm sure.
You can go ahead and deny that you've been posting anonymously to try to give the impression that you are being supported by someone other than yourself, but I personally will not buy it, and just so you know I am now 100% convinced that you are an extremely dishonest person and that your movie is LIHOP for a reason.
You're a sloppy shill to boot. Expertize... jeez...
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
golly gee, Real Truther, you're right!
I've been following this discussion and you're right! Anonymous and John Albanese have a similar way of misspelling the word "expertise", using a Z instead of the S. How odd! Me, I'm just an anonymous user who agrees with everything RT says. He is wonderful--the best! Yay RT! I AGREE with you, but not because I AM you! Nope!
-Anonymous RT-fan
more insults
[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
a sure sign of a weak mind and low IQ.
Here is a picture of what red hot aluminum looks like.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-2.jpg
again - you claim ***expertize*** in an area you do not possess. and again - personal insults are a sure fire way of intentionally disrupting.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 4:33pm
Very Shameful
Veeeeery bad for your credibility.
A simple challenge as to whether what the firemen saw was indeed molten "steel" becomes reduced to a childish series of accusations and half-assed claims.
It is for this reason that i cannot in good conscience support sending potential newbies to this site. It is just not the face of 9/11 Truth that i would want adults and peers to see. It is frankly embarassing.
Its about credibility folks.
I guess this is the problem with open forums. any adolescent personality can lay claim to ***expertize*** and misrepresent the quest for truth.
it is no different than the rightious indignation you see among the no-planers. full of sound
>excess crap edited out<
Disruption is a sure-fire way of discrediting a movement. If you are truly sincere activists for the truth - why would you seek to adopt the technique of organized disruptors who sew the seeds of discord and phony arguments?
Submitted by John Albanese on Thu, 11/16/2006 - 6:40pm.
Yo
Building 7 had molten steel in it as well.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/wtc.r09.usgs.thermal.icon.jpg
No plane hit it.
Where did aluminum come from?
Also, if WTC was a pancake collapse, why was there nothing left? No bodies, no furniture, no computers, no nothing.
Anonymous, a friendly request...
I know things get heated on here as they do on Conspiracy Smasher, but could you do us and you a favor and pick an ID name so we can remember who you are. If you check all of my posts, I never resort to name calling and insults, except yesterday wher I made some Star Wars Jokes, but they weren't malicious. I know both sides of this debate are guilty of name calling and I blame, what I like to call, "NET-RAGE". It happens in almost any kind of forum. I ask you to do this out of respect because I noticed some of us were getting you confused with other ANON's. Peace!
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
lol...
I like how you addressed my question.
Building 7. Please explain the hotspots...
thank you.
Did you mean me?
I am on your side. I think you meant Anonymous.
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
T-Bone do you mean Anonynous or Ajohnymous?
Because as you'll note from John Albanese's confession below, HE was the "Anonymous" in this post, but he was just doing it as a "test". Lovely. Reminds me of a similar test that happened on a Harvard forum where a member of Students for Israel posed as "Fabian Cooper", a raving anti-semite, to "test"the forum and "see if it was tolerant of anti-semites". Google Eric Trager AND Fabian Cooper--just a glimpse into the world of amateur hour dirty tricks. Thanks for patrolling the forum, John! Have you considered a job with DHS? I think maybe at some point you did, huh? ;)
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
hhahhahhaaahaaahha
Too funny.
Are you sure you are not Haupt?
Stealing his material then.
apparently it is not [permissible to ask questions and challenge beliefs]. we must all make bllod-vows to the fundamentalist church of Real Truther and the CD cabal. we must all swear to believe the same thing - or we are evil agents of the underworld.
Falling off the chair here. Makes me laugh. Thank you.
Peggy the no-planer
coming from a no-planer this is a complement.
but this is a perfect example of why this forum is a failure and why in good conscience i cannot send anyone here.
i can - with a fair amount of confidence send people to www.911Truth.org - along with a very goodly number of other quality sites.
but - frankly - as much as i admire the work the creators of this site have done - i ultimately have come to the conclusion that an OPEN FORUM does not work - for the simple reason that people like YOU who advocate TVFakery are doing more harm than good.
You are another example of someone who pollutes these boards with disinformation and accusation. you are another example of someone who always shows up to hound me with posts like these.
so - i rest my case.
no planes Peggy aka Margarite? no planes? THAT's you contribution to this movement?
people in glass houses
Then dont
and leave.
Although what you are saying is WHY I have asked many times for the No planers and various other idiots to be banned.
Allowing such utter stupidity to continue posting here serves no purpose and will always end up in bitter disputes, which is exactly what they want.
and YES I will continue to call these idiots exactly what they are as long as they are allowed to post their garbage here.
I have no problem calling an idiot an idiot.
I think most of the problems we have today is because too many people are trying to be overly nice and politically correct.
If someone makes a totally absurd statement there should be no hesitation from everyone to say that is utterly ridiculous and if that person keeps on defending this delusion without a shred of evidence while totally denying all the evidence showing they are clearly wrong then i see no problem calling them an asshole and a shill because that is what they are.
People that talk like Alex Jones get their point across.
People that talk very meek like Steven Jones even though he is 100% correct get run over.
We need to get our point across and if that means screaming and yelling it with a freaking bullhorn from the rooftops then so be it.
Idiots and Assholes...
Here is another area where you and I can disagree. While I agree with you that it should be pointed out when someone is making absurd statements without merit, I feel we do not have to resort childish name calling. I try and put myself in the shoes of an impartial observer and imagine how one might view us if venom is being spewed left and right. I know how most would see us, since I can see how I view people over at ConspiracySmasher. It doesn't look good and I am not trying to be overly nice here. Yes, for the most part, I am a nice guy. Political correctness....I am no fan, since I am very opinionated and feel free to speak my mind, even when not asked. Just ask my wife. Plus, I don't think avoiding lables and name calling is being politically correct or overly nice. In addition, it is not like calling someone an asshole is going to change their mind. If they're an asshole, shouldn't that be self evident? I know it sometimes can make us feel better to point it out, but as a tool in debating it is useless and only destructive. I can't tell you how many times I have read someones post who I agree with, but then see them resort to name calling and I shake my head. That person loses some credibility with me, even if I agree with him/her. The reason is due to lack of patience with people. I am an insurance agent, so I have developed increadible patience over the years and am used to people yelling at me. People don't like the insurance guy, for the most part.
People like Alex Jones do get their point across. I agree, but he seldom resorts to calling people names. His facts are his weapons.
Another thing, would you call someone an asshole when debating someone in person? Maybe you would, I don't know. Most of us wouldn't I would imagine, or hope, but then again, I'm a nice guy.
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
well we can agree to disagree
then, I have been on various message boards debating everything under the sun for about 15 years and have found that decorum on a message board is totally meaningless.
I call an asshole an asshole and I'm proud of it.
and yes after so much discussion with people that flatly refuse to accept factual reality & deny cold hard facts without batting an eyelash I have become extremely impatient I admit.
In a proper debate setting it is very unlikely I would resort to calling even some loon like Fred Phelps an asshole, but this is not a proper debate setting.
sitting in front of someone is enormously different than a message board.
The inflection of ones voice, a look, body language, plus presenting a solid piece of evidence and watching the person you are debating say Ummm, ahhh, well, Umm DUH is priceless and gets the point across nicely.
On here you can present the most irrefutable facts known to man and some nutcase will refute it every damn time with pure senseless crap.
Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
That is what debating on a message board is like.
But none the less I dont come out calling someone an asshole or whatever until it becomes apparent there is zero hope for said individual.
For instance you & had a short debate about religion even though I caught you in a couple of the usual fallacious Christian apologetic responses that are easily debunked I didn't jump down your throat and likewise you remained affable.
Many of the nutbags on here flatly refuse to accept reality........I just dont have a problem calling such a cretin an asshole or whatever disparagement that makes me feel a bit better.
I can respect that...
I can respect your freedom of speech and expression. America is great.
---From a decon @ my church: "I want to tell you something very serious..very serious, but I don't want you to say 'I told you so'. I want you to forgive me..You were right. I know the truth about 9/11.
can't we all just get along?
and blame Pakistan while not mentioning the controlled demolition of the 3 buildings owned by Larry Silverstein?
I mean, if we can't play nice with everyone, including No Plane shills, Beam Weapon shills, and Blame Paksitan shills, then we are just going to come across as meanies to all the good people in the world.
Now, if someone dares mention Zionism that's different--by all means then we should allow John Albanese to call that person a neo-Nazi. Because it's all about how Fox News is going to portray us to their learned viewers.
The Dancing Israeli Mossad agents have explained over and over that they were there in New York photographing themselves in front of the burning towers while flicking their lighters in front of it, blaming Palestinians, dressing as Arabs, carrying box cutter, driving a van with traces of explosives in it, and getting arrested, interrogated and deported in order to DOCUMENT THE EVENT, OK?
If we allow anti-semites to constantly bring them up as if they might have had something to do with the actual demolition of Larry Silverstein's buildings, just because Larry had weekly phone chats with right wing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, we are going to be seen by viewers of the Man Cow show as rabidly unfair bigots.
So WHAT if AIPAC is a den of spies and the faux intelligence for the Iraq War was cooked up by rabidly pro-Israel fanatics in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. Everyone knows that only a NAZI SYMPATHIZER would suggest that 9/11 and the war on Iraq and Islamofascism generally were intended to benefit Israel.
It's time to rally behind our leaders, like Nancy "AIPAC Now and Forever" Pelosi and stand with our Israeli allies against the evil rumors that 9/11 was anything other than the work of evil Muslims who hate America because of its freedoms and Israel because it is Jewish.
Judaism is a religion of PEACE!! Haven't people read the Talmud, which states in no uncertain terms that if a Jewish man rapes a non-Jewish woman, the woman should be put to death and the man scolded for sullying himself by having intercourse with a sheketz (abomination, dirty animal, gentile woman)?
So yeah, Judaism is no worse than Islam OR Christinanity!! So leave those Israel-fanatics alone!!
or, how about this--separation of church and state is a GOOD idea! worked for the founding fathers...
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I not sure what your point is
:)
What's your point?
"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle
That was quick
John's been posting farewell posts for days now. I know how tempting it is to go anonymous but it is ultimately unsatisfying like anonymous sex.
more glossary terms
farewell post: a post in which a shill pretends to be outraged and/or disappointed and/or saddened and/or embarrassed, etc. with the behavior/positions of truthers who call him or her out on clear errors in judgement, hypocrisy, outright lies, etc. The desired effect on the part of the shill is to make it seem as if the truthers named are "hurting the movement" in order to intimidate others from agreeing with them and/or pressure the community to expel them for fear of "hurting the movement" or "losing credibility". Ideally the farewell post is followed by pleas for the shill not to leave (from the shill's allies or from the shill himself posting as someone else) at which point the shill can a) agree to stay with a warning that things have to "get better" b) actually leave for good (very rare) c) pretend the scene never happened and continue to post shilly stuff, or d) pretend to have actually left but return as someone else. The farewell post is considered to have backfired if no one begs the shill to stay, as the implication is that, even if not stated, the departure is welcomed by the community.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Seriously. Stop calling people shills
You are chasing away quality people who have a right to be disgusted with your strongarm tactics.
You act like you own this board. and attack dedicated activists just for disagreeing with you.
Only one problem
You are not just "asking questions" you were being a complete jackass spewing easily debunked crap and vehemently defending it without a shred of evidence.
I will call such a person a jackass and an idiot every damn time.
Red Hot Alum
Of course you can get alum to glow red hot, the question is, does alum glow red hot at the temps at the WTC. Any chance you can point to the reference that tells how hot the alum in that picture is heated to?
As I looked throught that site, I noticed some photos that are referenced as alum:
http://www.foundry101.com/
http://northwestcasting.com/
http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/index.html
As you can see, alum is silver and liquid, therefore the temp that alum must be, to be red hot, is greater than the melting point of alum. Right? The question then is how hot do you have to get alum so that it glows red hot and of course, how hot did it get at the WTC.
.
It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. ~ Voltaire
If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for them Mexicans. ~ Texas politician, Spanish as a second language
No one rules if no one obeys. ~ TaoDo
The crimes of the U.S. throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody cares to talk about them. ~ Harold Pinter
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because, man, they're gone. ~ Jack Handey
.
That's funny
this approach lacks humility, balance, objectivity and is impolite towards anyone with an open mind who seeks to explore ALL the possibilities.
Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that.
Funny how Shalom doesn't go
Funny how Shalom doesn't go after obvious agents like this? eh...
Has anyone ever used a cutting torch before?
I have used a cutting torch many times, but apparently, Kerosene is just as effective as the oxygen and acetolene. If it wasn't for The collapse of the towers on 9/11 and subsequent investigation of why...I never would have known that.
All this time I could have used jet fuel...sheesh!
Thanks for the laughs.
Lots of jolly material here tonight.
Cui Bono?
Dismissing the fact that Irael benifitted more than anyone from 911 is very foolish.
No, I'm not an 'Anti-Semite', as anyone who doesn't ignore the fact that Israel is a terrorist state is labeled. I am an anti-Zionist though, don't confuse the two.
"Zionist-Gatekeepers"?
Maybe we need to use the above term for those among us that immediately attack the Truthers who feel the Israeli connections to, and motives for, 9/11 cannot be ignored (as part of a larger mosaic of complicity and motive that includes other groups, as well, of course). Israel is just part of the criminal whole that is 9/11, but not an insignificant one, IMO...or a one to be ignored...
Anyone who brings this Israeli evidence up, and it is considerable, is quickly smeared as Anti-Semitic....which is quite hypocritical when you consider there is more than one 9/11 film out there with a significant "blame Pakistan" focus and no one labels those films' supporters as "Anti-Muslim"....
Zionist Gatekeeper: "Israeli involvement? Nope, don't go there...not ever...never....uh uh....no way...couldn't be....we don't talk about that....nothing to see....", etc. Instead, we get:... "Hey, look over here at Pakistan!"....
Good point but look up
Good point but look up ant-semite will you? "They" changed the definition in 2002!!! If you are anti-Israel you are also anti-semitic!!! over night billions of ppl all over the world became anti-semites without knowing it and I was one of them! "They" control the words man and the word says that you are an anti-semite.
2002: Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged), re-printed in 2002, provides a new definition of Anti Semitism which has not been updated since 1956. It reads,
"Anti-Semitism: (1) hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination (2) opposition to Zionism (3) sympathy for the opponents of Israel."
It was definition (2) and (3) that were added in the 2002 edition, just before the USA decide to invade Iraq under orders from the State of Rothschild, I mean Israel
9/11 was a zionist job !!!!
an interesting site I
an interesting site I stumbled on today, old to most of you I am sure...
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com
Some good bits on there...
FOOL..answer my question!!!
I see that you don't like to pay attention to questions your flimsy theories cant answer.
Why was there molten STEEL in WTC 7 ????
I linked the thermal data here it is again....your whole argument falls apart..
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2537/hotspots5qb.jpg
No Plane hit WTC 7.
Molten Steel?
Wonder how the fellow in the clip knew it was molten steel?
Was that an assumption?
Hmmm?
The title of the blog may be misleading? The interviewee did say "steel."
Anonymous
is a shill. Just here to waste our time with baseless assertions. Judy Wood is obviously working for the other side and I suspect Albanese is also.
"Of course, the only
"Of course, the only acceptable explanation of any public discussion at present of the Jewish
Question is that some one -- writer, or publisher, or a related interest -- is a Jew-hater. That idea
seems to be fixed; it is fixed in the Jew by inheritance; it is sought to be fixed in the Gentile by
propaganda, that any writing which does not simply cloy and drip in syrupy sweetness toward
things Jewish is born of prejudice and hatred. It is, therefore, full of lies, insult, insinuation, and
constitutes an instigation to massacre.
It would seem to be necessary for our Jewish citizens to enlarge their classification of Gentiles to include the class which recognizes the existence of a Jewish Question and still is not anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitism is a term which is bandied about too loosely. It ought to be reserved to denote
the real anti-Jewish temper of violent prejudice. If used indiscriminately about all who attempt
to discuss Jewish characteristics and Jewish world-power, it may in time arrive at the estate of
respectability and honor."
"there is nothing more ridiculous to the Gentile mind than a mass conspiracy,
because there is nothing more impossible to the Gentile himself."
Henry Ford 1920!!
read this book NOW!!!!
http://www.radioislam.org/ford/TheInternationalJew.pdf
they do it to Muslims all the time
Go ahead and try this experiment--switch the word Jewish or Jew for the word Muslim in the following phrases and see what heppens...
The Muslims in country X are troublemakers.
Muslim terrorism is a real growing threat in the world.
Muslim religious teachers routinely spew hateful venom towards people who aren't Muslims.
If American Muslims want to be trusted they should just own up to the problems with their co-religionists.
It is OK to profile Muslims becomes a lot of them are terrorists and hate others.
If Muslims don't condemn other Muslims who kill innocents they are as bad as the killers.
The first step in healing and understanding is honesty. Can anyone here honestly say that if Jews were treated as Muslims have been treated since 9/11 there would be the same kind of silence on the subject in the Ameircan media?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
so true.
you must HATE Glenn Beck,hahaha. hes having Benjamin Netanyahu on tonight i believe. should be disgusting. did you happen to see him talk to the first muslim member of congress the other night? there is NOBODY in the MSM that pushes the false threat of "islamofascism" harder than Glenn Beck. the guy is constantly gripped by irrational fear.
he smells of intel deep
he smells of intel deep cover to me...
Forget the Professors...
I'm wondering, seriously, why nobody gets the concept of 'space attenuation?' Not 'outer-space,' but simple, physical acoustical space. Is it because there's nobody here who ever even visited these buildings? Can you not see it as a simple uniform rectilinear box? Try this in your Uni. dorm room. Take a variable oscilator and create a deep bass 'tone' and adjust it until you can't hear the sound. -No sound!- Then fire off a package of Black Cat's, and tape their actual sound. What did you get on the tape? Fuzzy-garbled and greatly reduced '-op's, not BANG's, -right?
Now you're thinking like the guys at "CDI."
Wow, man, this idea is worth thinking about!
Why you post it here suddenly? Maybe you should mail it to someone (scholars)?