| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
egw
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 101
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 7:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The Jim and Judy show.
When you put two shills close together like that, why the noise becomes almost deafening! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not liars. And not part of the cover-up. Just mistaken in their assumption that what they thought was smoke due to burning material was in fact vapour generated by exothermic CHEMICAL reactions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me
Moderate Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 431
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
| Quote: | | WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. |
| Quote: |
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: |
Not liars. And not part of the cover-up. Just mistaken in their assumption that what they thought was smoke due to burning material was in fact vapour generated by exothermic CHEMICAL reactions. |
so the fireman who said he saw streams of molten steel is not lieing or is lieing? i take it you did watch the clip i provided that far?
they cannot be mistaken when they saw it with their own eyes, unless they were lieing, so which is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easy Rider
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lots of people told lies about 911.
Some were in on it from the start
Some would have been bribed to say things that were false
Some would have had threats made against them, their family or their job if they did not tell lies.
Firemen are human beings like the rest of us, they would lie if they had to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easy Rider wrote: | Lots of people told lies about 911.
Some were in on it from the start
Some would have been bribed to say things that were false
Some would have had threats made against them, their family or their job if they did not tell lies.
Firemen are human beings like the rest of us, they would lie if they had to. |
why would firemen be forced to lie about there being molten steel, when the offical version denies it? are the perps trying to incriminate themselves?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh9TsTWITzA
the offical version denies it but then forces people to contridict it or else!
wheres the logic in that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Easy Rider
Minor Poster
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Because the offical version was set up deliberately to fall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easy Rider wrote: | | Because the offical version was set up deliberately to fall |
?????
you claim there was no molten metal.
NIST claimed there was no molten metal.
firemen claim there was molten metal.
images exisist of molten metal at ground zero.
are the firemen lieing or not, and are all the images fake? if so should we trust them when they say they heard explosions etc, and when we see information contridicting the offical version?
is it now all being twisted to fit the offical version and the liars are those contridicting it? or are people slowly being convinced to believe all the evidence pointing to inside job was faked and the offical version is actually true?
explain what you mean and how it proves molten metal did'nt exsist at ground zero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Easy Rider wrote: | | Because the offical version was set up deliberately to fall |
?????
you claim there was no molten metal.
NIST claimed there was no molten metal.
firemen claim there was molten metal.
images exisist of molten metal at ground zero.
are the firemen lieing or not, and are all the images fake? if so should we trust them when they say they heard explosions etc, and when we see information contridicting the offical version?
is it now all being twisted to fit the offical version and the liars are those contridicting it? or are people slowly being convinced to believe all the evidence pointing to inside job was faked and the offical version is actually true?
explain what you mean and how it proves molten metal did'nt exsist at ground zero. |
Cut to the chase Marky, no planes, no explosions - it was video fakery and DEWs. Viola. QED. Etc etc.
You know and I know that this is where it is going, so quit debating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes i know where it will end up, im just more intrested in the evidence there is to get there, and how much other evidence/witnesses have to be ignored inorder to acheive that point of view.
they are all like the comission report, selective evidence but ignore and omit the evidence you don't want to hear.
witnesses are being omited by lots of theorys including the offical one.
each side is becoming that of which they were fighting in the first place, who needs critics to debunk s.jones/j.wood/fetzer etc etc truthers are doing a good enough job at it, i often see threads of them all accusing the other as being shill or whatever else, but each one ignores any information/evidence they don't want to hear or that dos'nt fit their point of view.
so when someone says molten metal pys-op then i ask questions im not saying there information is'nt true if they can prove wrong the other information to contray rather than just ignore it.
because as it stands in many cases, the only way it can be believed is if you ignore evidence to the contray that cannot be proved wrong.
i will listen but i will not ignore evidence saying otherwise inorder to believe it, unless that other evidence can be proved wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
