See other 9/11 Articles
Title: DR. STEVEN JONES- PNAC-4/14/07- NEW 9/11 EVIDENCE
Source:
YouTube
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0
Published: Apr 30, 2007
Author: Steven Jones
Post Date: 2007-04-30 23:57:52 by Critter
Ping List: *You Gotta Be Shitting Me* Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Keywords: 9/11, Truth, Thermate
Views: 7065
Comments: 150
Subscribe to *You Gotta Be Shitting Me*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
#1. To: Robin, Christine, Diana, Zipporah, Honway, kamala, Aristeides, Red Jones, Ferret Mike, skydrifter, Destro, BeALoser, I mean BeAChooser, all (#0)
(Edited)
Good shit from the good doctor.
ROTFLOL! Jones is either a liar or a very sloppy researcher. For example, he claimed this: was a photo of slag from a pool of molten steel. It is not. It is a photo of a chunk of pancaked floors composed of sheet steel, reinforced concrete, rebar, wood and even paper debris with writing still legible on it. And there is photo after photo available proving this: And this is only one of many dishonesties that ex-professor Jones has promoted with respect to 9/11. Here are some more: He has claimed that "there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7". That is absolutely false. Neither he or any in the 911 CT community have named an eyewitness who actually said there were "pools" of molten metal. And the source that Jones cited to back up his claim when he said that didn't name a single eyewitness. In fact, the word "pool" wasn't even mentioned in the article he cited. With regards to the metal observed falling from the South Tower a short while before the collapse, Jones once claimed "the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." As has been proven with a video of that event several times here at 4um, that is patently false. The material falling in the video is at times quite silvery in appearance. He also said "this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color". That too is false, as the video showed quite clearly. And to show how willing Jones is to alter his claimed evidence in order to prove his obsession, he recently switched to describing the falling material as follows: "yellow-white hot molten metal". He said "the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.)" Notice that it is no longer orange or reddish-orange as he initially claimed. Now it's yellow or yellow-white. He changed the color because he learned that molten steel would have to be that color. Perhaps he learned this from Thomas Eager of MIT who has been quoted (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html ) saying "I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him." I think Mr Eager is correct. Steven Jones is a DISHONEST sub-atomic particle physicist who wants the lime light. He didn't get it with another research topic he was involved in at BYU ... another scam ... cold fusion. As to his claims about the composition of the dust (the 1.5 mm spheres) and that they prove thermite was used at the WTC site, I have the following comments. First, Jones has clearly lied before about 9/11 evidence so I don't think he is above fabricating data to "prove" his allegation about 9/11. He is that obsessed with proving this since he's staked his career and credibility on the allegation. Second ... there is NO chain of custody in that sample of dust he claims came from the WTC site. According to Jones, it came from Janette MacKinlay, a visual *artist*, who it turns out is also highly obsessed (http://www.communitycurrency.org/blog.html ) with this topic (and making money from it). MacKinlay is the *colorful* lady with the scarf to the right of Jones in the photo below at one of their recent conferences. Curiously enough, Jones also says she took and supplied the photo that Jones claimed showed slag from a pool of molten steel. So she must have known that wasn't true since she must have seen the item up close when she took the picture. Yet she has let Jones misrepresent what the object was in public forums and papers. So she too seems somewhat dishonest and not above fabricating evidence. Which seems to be typical of those running the *truth* movement. Third ... http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-now-for-some-science.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/01/steven-jones-is-experimenting.html http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/11/why-is-steven-jones-on-skids.html
This one must really scare you. You broke out the monster spam post for this, eh? I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass. You might wish to check on that.
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash? WTF is wrong with you? Are you that retarded? Really? I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit. You are the biggest asshole I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on a forum.
Actually, it was in a museum. Or didn't you know that either? I certainly hope that christine has a sense of humor.
OK, I let your dimness get under my skin tonight, and almost went to find a new home. But, I would miss beating the crap out of you on these threads too much, so... here's some more beating. hehehe The USGS has a Particle Atlas of world Trade Center dust: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html It is basically a breakdown of the contents of dust samples. From the USGS spectra analysis of a couple of iron spheres found in the wtc dust samples: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-03.jpg http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/graphics/IRON-04.jpg You will notice (if you're not a US government black op shill of course) that they very closely match what Dr. Jones spectra analysis produced, if you watched the video. Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition? Come on genius. Tell me.
Wow! The government sure went to a lot of effort to cover up this smoking gun, critter. ROTFLOL! But why do you assume the spheres were produced before/during the collapse rather than after ... when no one argues that molten steel wasn't present? Here's what a chemist/metallurgist (rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist ... he he he) has to say about the production of metal spheres: ************ http://www.mujca.com/procrustes.htm The Collapse of WTC 1 and 2: A New Theory F. R. Greening ... snip ... Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers. I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed. Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.” 1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005) 2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006) 3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003. 4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004). The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 mm to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses. In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period. Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 mm of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use our previous estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. We have shown in the first part of this article that if some of the thermal insulation that was applied to floor assemblies in the Twin Towers was spiked with 25 % by weight of ammonium perchlorate and subsequently exposed to jet-fuel fires, it would have heated the steel decking to ~ 1390 °C. Now, since the boiling point of zinc is 908 °C, this degree of heating of a floor assembly would have been sufficient to vaporize the zinc in the galvanized steel! To conclude: we have shown that an AP collapse theory accounts for all four processes that collectively led to the observed level of destruction to WTC 1 & 2, namely: the buckling and fracture of floor elements; the collapse of entire floor sections; explosive spalling and “powderizing” of the concrete; melting of the floor pans. As an aside, we note that the addition of ammonium perchlorate to the thermal insulation on the upper floors of the Twin Towers comes very close to being the perfect crime. The deadly AP-spiked concoction would have been almost identical to the un-spiked coating; it could have been sprayed on selected surfaces with impunity; it required no elaborate detonator devices to be activated – moderate heating worked just fine. And finally, because AP decomposes to gaseous products, it leaves no telltale residues. Of course, I haven’t proved that AP was used in the Twin Towers, but to end with a famous quote: “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth……..” F.R. Greening, March 15th, 2007 ************** Or perhaps professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 has the answer (http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399 ): "In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground." *************** Also, the steel rebar in the concrete floors and steel members in the structure were scraped during the collapse producing tiny particles. The melting point of steel is lower in this form? Think along the lines of the glowing particles coming off a grinding wheel. Perhaps micron size particles formed their spherical shape at the elevated temperature in the falling debris itself just due to mechanical friction? ROTFLOL!
More BS I see. None of that explains the presence of sulfer, manganese etc, in the sphere. Occams razor. Remember that one? You use it all the time. The simplest explanation for the makeup up the spheres is the use of thermate. Too many coincidental anomolies have to take place to produce thermate signature spheres without using thermate. Go chase yoruself.
The idiot's only motive is his desire for war. He doesn't shill because the facts are on his side, he just sees the war and oppression the Bush Administration pushes in the wake of these false flag operations as the sort of reality that appeals to him. He knows he just has to blur the picture to dampen the increasing awareness of the American People to what has happened. He goes for making it seem like a reasonable debate is occurring to discourge people's interest in piercing the psychological thrushhold of not wanting to deal with the horror of having the worst sort of criminals possible in charge of government. He has failed to make his case, and doesn't have the tools to even try. I say react to an attack on getting the truth out that Goldi's biker bar banishment with a quid pro quo banning of Bealiar. It's possible his banning there was contrived in order to send him here to put a damper on the efforts of Truthers here. I would be curious to see if he was suddenly reinstated at LP if banned here; I say he will.
if the vile evil entity gets no replies, IT will self exile. i can't imagine IT wants to continue to talk only to ITself.
Some very good people take the time to post meaningful and important articles on freedom4um.com. Honest debate and serious discussion on these important matters should be welcome by all. BeAChooser has been exposed on every thread he has participated on. He is dishonest and has no interest in the truth, only his agenda. This cartoon phase appears to be a "suicide by cop" tactic. If BeAChooser is banned here, where does he go? No where. "BeAChooser" dies and he knows it. It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
BTW,if I was making the decision, either the cartoon spams would stop or BeAChooser would get his wish.
Given the strident calls for my banning on this thread, I shall use my first post of the day to respond to that. Why are you folks so fearful of me? You say I'm disruptive of the forum? But I only get 15 posts a day and sometimes I don't even use all of them. If just those I've pinged post 3 times each day, my message will be overwhelmed. Most 4um members, your audience, are behind a bozo filter and can't see me anyway. And no one else listens to anything I write (or so it's claimed by some of you). So why are you worried about what I post in the first place? Now I think I've been a model of debating decorum while at 4um. I haven't called posters names despite considerable provocation on your part. I haven't used obscenities although many have been directed at me. I've tried to respond logically and factually to what I've been asked. Indeed, most of my posts have contained sourced facts and (IMO) sound logic. I have never asked that anyone be banned. I am not posting under any other names on this or any other forum. Hence I'm not talking about Freedom4um behind it's back. And what I've said about Freedom4um here has been decidedly mild. I've contributed by posting an article or two from time to time. I'm not here representing anyone but myself. And I'm certainly not being paid to post (despite what some insist). I have a sense of humor ... as those cartoons surely prove. Maybe it's my laughing that disturbs you? I even find fault with a great many things Bush and his administration have done. So what about the above is sooooooooo disturbing that banning is demanded? My motives are clear. I've said from the beginning that you won't find the truth about 9/11 if you link legitimate questions ... questions that do indeed deserve answers ... to easily discredited allegations ... such as bombs in the towers and no-Flight 77. I've said that you won't find the truth about 9/11 (or any other topic) if the spokesperson for your cause (be it Jones, Ryan, Griffin, Les Roberts, or whoever) makes easily discredited claims, misrepresents the facts, is illogical or outright lies. I've said you won't get a legitimate investigation of 9/11 if your calls for one are based on disinformation spouted by dishonest, self-serving leaders and posters. I've said that I'm here to set the record straight on certain issues and leaders through honest, civil debate. I don't think I've veered from that mission or means. Because I actually want to see the "truth" movement succeed. Truth is good (although secrecy is sometimes advised). But to succeed, the movement must be based on facts, not disinformation. For it to be otherwise will in the end only harm the truth and those who seek it. How can any of that be so disturbing that you must demand my banning? That call seems counter to the very principles which you folks claim to support. Think about that. I'm actually trying to help you focus on what's important. The Truth. And the means of finding it. Don't you think your movement should be based on verifiable truth and sound logic, rather than lie filled videos like ... say ... Loose Change 2? Don't you think your movement should be led by leaders who don't misrepresent facts, distort the facts or lie? Rather than folks like Jones, Avery, Griffin, Roberts? By leaders who have no hidden agenda of their own? Now, of course, christine can do whatever she pleases. She is the forum owner. It is well within her right and power to ban me just as it was within her right to limit my posting privileges. But I respectfully suggest that banning me, given the record for honest and civil debate that I've now established on this forum, would make Freedom4um look very bad. Look at the criticisms you folks have leveled against Goldi for relegating threads involving 9/11 theories to her biker bar. Just because she disagrees with them. Yet you apparently want to completely ban someone just because he disagrees with you. The plain and simple truth is that if your theories and claims can't stand up to the criticisms of a single poster (one who even has limited posting privileges), do you really think they are all that sound? Maybe they need some refining. Think of me as someone who is trying to help you do that and we will get along fine. I really mean that ...
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty and are therefore not deserving of any special consideration or respect. When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq, or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD, or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing, you reveal yourself as someone who cannot accept any truth that contradicts your preconceived versions of events. So don't try to pass yourself off as someone who is fighting a lonely battle for truth. You're a liar, who both makes up your own lies and repeats the lies of others, and not even a very good one.
So you want to join this conversation? Does insisting that WTC 7 only took 6.5 seconds to collapse, when I just linked a video proving that the collapse began more than 7 seconds BEFORE the CT community has been saying it began, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that WTC 7 collapsed straight down, when photographic proof exists that it didn't, show intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the WTC towers collapsed in 9-11 seconds, when there are videos that prove the collapse took 15 seconds, indicate intellectual honesty? Does insisting that the hole in the Pentagon was only 16 to 20 feet wide and therefore a 757 couldn't possibly have crashed into the building show intellectual honesty when in fact photos clearly show the hole was much, much larger? Is intellectual honesty claiming a chunk of debris came from a pool of molten steel show intellectual honesty when intact rebar, steel members, pipes and concrete are obvious components of that chuck? Does claiming a stream of molten material was reddish-orange but switching to claim it was yellow-white after one learns that color would indicate molten steel show intellectual honesty? Does quote mining show intellectual honesty? Does ignoring the illogic of a conspiracy of thousands show intellectual honesty? First of all, if you check back you will find that I said the ISG said they had a credible expert who told them WMD material were moved to Syria. That certainly leaves open the possibility of WMD being moved to Syria. Especially when the ISG also said that the Iraqis went to extraordinary lengths to sanitize computers, files and facilities that they thought related to WMD before, during and even after the invasion. They were hiding *something* related to WMD. And if you can't tell the difference between Rumsfeld making claims on the basis of intel (which is always incomplete and half a guess) and a *truth* movement member claiming something when photographic evidence that contradicts what is claimed is staring that *truth* movement member in the face, you again show you don't know the meaning of intellectual dishonesty. Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Experts have stated that the amount of 40 percent sarin in that one shell could kill thousands if properly dispersed by terrorists. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring that fact. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that al-Zarqawi (a terrorist) was actively plotting a WMD attack while he was in BAGHDAD before Iraq was ever invaded. And Saddam was basically ignoring his group of terrorists as proven by the fact that when one of them was picked up by his security apparatus he was released on orders from Saddam. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. And I'll let IraqBodyWatch, an organization that is definitely not pro-war or in the Bush camp, respond to your claim that there are no missing death certificates: **************** From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. And this: If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. ************ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/0.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/1.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/2.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/3.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/4.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/5.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php ************ And Intellectual dishonesty is simply ignoring in debate the more than dozen other serious flaws in the John Hopkins studies that were pointed out. The fact of the matter is that there is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis died from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. And how can that be in a country which has according to the researchers seen 2.5 percent of its population killed (a percentage greater than the percentage of Germany's and Japan's population killed in World War 2 where there was plenty of physical evidence that such a slaughter had occurred).
Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that Saddam's government told the UN inspectors they had destroyed all such shells. Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter whether the shell would work on a battlefield since it was fear that the CONTENTS of shells like it might end up in the hands of terrorists that was a large part of the justification of the invasion. Intellectual dishonesty is blindly accepting a multiply flawed study written by researchers who openly admitted their bias against the war and Bush, who hired people in Iraq to do the leg work who they admit "hated" Americans, who don't seem to know exactly how their own study was conducted when queried about it and who published their report in a journal that rushed the peer review process admitting that it too wanted to affect the outcome of Bush's reelection. I guess if you really are one of those disinfo guys you'd never admit to it. The above part reminded me of Jesse Jackson when he goes on a rampage.
There are no replies to Comment # 150. End Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Critter, ALL (#1)
This is incredible! I love this guy!
Good shit from the good doctor.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#11. To: BeAChooser (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: Critter, ALL (#11)
I do believe that the people holding that chunk of whatever it is are the ones that said it was the result of a molten mass.
"People holding"? What in the world are you talking about, Critter? No one is holding that chunk of material that Steven Jones claimed in his viewgraph presentation was slag from a pool of molten steel. Are you experiencing the same eyesight problems that kept you from seeing that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet wide? ROTFLOL!
#14. To: BeAChooser (#13)
#19. To: Critter, ALL (#14)
They are not holding it anywhere? It has been tossed out in the trash?
I really can't wait til Christine has had enough of your bullshit.
#24. To: BeAChooser (#19)
#29. To: Critter, ALL (#24)
Spheres, that the USGS found in the dust. Spheres. How do you make an iron rich sphere Mr. genius? You must melt the iron and propel it through the air. Since NIST confirms that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, how did they melt iron and keep it melted long enough for it to be propelled through the air during the collapse mechanism in order to cool in a sperical condition?
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
#30. To: BeAChooser (#29)
#31. To: Critter, christine, Minerva (#30)
(Edited)
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
#95. To: christine (#33)
#96. To: , christine (#95)
It is a tough call. I am glad I am not making it.
#104. To: honway, RickyJ, Ferret Mike, IndieTX, SKYDRIFTER, Critter, Kamala, Esso, Diana, christine, ALL (#96)
#147. To: BeAChooser (#104)
#148. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
Your contorted defenses of the WOT, and the Bush policies in general, show you have no intellectual honesty
When you say things - over and over - like Saddam moved his WMD's to Syria, when Rumsfeld himself said "We know" they were in Tikrit which is in Iraq,
or that a degraded chemical warhead qualifies as a WMD,
or that there were hundreds of thousands of "missing death certificates" when there was never any such thing,
#150. To: BeAChooser (#148)
Intellectual dishonesty is claiming the shell was degraded when the ISG said it contained 40 percent potent sarin.
Replies to Comment # 150.
