It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I wouldn't exactly call that extreme.

What is it that you wouldn't call extreme?

WTC7 is the building entirely covered with smoke. How can you say that the entire building burning is not extreme damage?

I like that you brought origins into this discussion. It just show that, similar to creation "evidence", your argument relies entirely on debunking the official story. Even if the evidence was against a plane+fire+gravity-driven-collapse, it would not prove demolition. It would be nice if for once someone posted proof of how they wired the buildings with miles of primer cord with no one noticing, instead of attacking the NIST report. Claiming that the US gov can accomplish anything is much different than proving so.

This same all powerful force managed to not plant WMD's in Iraq to prove their story. I don't give them the credit you do, and it is more naive to assume the government is all-powerful, they can't even do the census right.

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
This same all powerful force managed to not plant WMD's in Iraq to prove their story. I don't give them the credit you do, and it is more naive to assume the government is all-powerful, they can't even do the census right.

CIA counter-proliferation network prevented a WMD "salting" operation by Bush White House in Iraq.

November 11, 2005 -- New aspect of Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings exposure revealed. According to U.S. intelligence sources, the White House exposure of Valerie Plame and her Brewster Jennings & Associates was intended to retaliate against the CIA's work in limiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

WMR has reported in the past on this aspect of the scandal. In addition to identifying the involvement of individuals in the White House who were close to key players in nuclear proliferation, the CIA Counter-Proliferation Division prevented the shipment of binary VX nerve gas from Turkey into Iraq in November 2002.

The Brewster Jennings network in Turkey was able to intercept this shipment which was intended to be hidden in Iraq and later used as evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence sources revealed that this was a major reason the Bush White House targeted Plame and her network.

Anyway WMD are another thread.
So how does a 12 inch wide H beam shear width wise, they look cut to me

[edit on 13/11/2005 by Sauron]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:48 PM

Originally posted by LeftBehind
WTC7 is the building entirely covered with smoke. How can you say that the entire building burning is not extreme damage?

Ahhhh.. Now I see why you call it extreme!

That smoke isn't coming from Building 7, it's the concrete dust that came the collapse of one of the two WTC towers.

Here's another example of such a dust cloud, from the South Tower's collapse:

Building 7 in your photo only shows some black burn marks and a place here and there where it was impacted by debris, apparently. The actual fires in the building were not so bad:

And so, as I said, all that stuff you see coming from the side of the building is concrete dust, etc. from the collapsing of one of the WTC towers.

I like that you brought origins into this discussion. It just show that, similar to creation "evidence", your argument relies entirely on debunking the official story. Even if the evidence was against a plane+fire+gravity-driven-collapse, it would not prove demolition.

I suppose it is just happy coincidence that all of the problems with the official story (ie, squibs, dis. of ang. mom., perfect symmetry and lack of retardation, more energy output required than input, etc.) fit perfectly with demolition: the demo theory logically puts all of those things in their places. Those things are actually quite common, if not outright trademarks of demolition.

And with the official story exhibiting so many holes, what other than gravity and demolition do you think could have brought the towers down? Maybe God or Allah or somebody like that if you're religious, but other than that, I can't think of any other explanations.

It would be nice if for once someone posted proof of how they wired the buildings with miles of primer cord with no one noticing, instead of attacking the NIST report.

It would be hard to provide proof of such things anyway, even if we thought that's how it was done (and I don't think that's how it was done; in fact, I hardly think anything on how it was done, because as I said, how does not really concern me - I'm sure the US military has the means).

But regardless.... it's not necessary to prove how to show that they did demolish those towers.

Claiming that the US gov can accomplish anything is much different than proving so.

I'm not saying they can do anything. I'm saying they can knock down a couple 110-story buildings without being any more conspicuous than necessary.

This same all powerful force managed to not plant WMD's in Iraq to prove their story.

Which would have likely been investigated by the United Nations, which is unfortunately not under US jurisdiction.
Not that we had to plant WMDs for the Republicans to be satisfied with a bloody war, anyway.

I don't give them the credit you do, and it is more naive to assume the government is all-powerful

I didn't say they were god.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:56 PM
thats one heck of a pile of dust

This seems to have been over looked buy the whitewash

external image

this is the top of the building one would think it would be falling down and not blowing up into dust

[edit on 13/11/2005 by Sauron]

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 10:16 PM
So have all the 'shills' on this board Howard etal had time to peruse this scientific reports.

If not here is another link for their convenience ...

Even more interesting is the fact that this report even uncovers multiple persons involved with the NIST report who don't agree with it.

Momentum is the key .... an excellent report that should be presented to congress before Dubya is impeached then sentenced to death for complicity to murder.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:11 AM
I originally thought that the cloud in the WTC7 photo could be from the collapse of a tower, but a look at the layout seems to refute this.

Here is the full, uncropped photo of the smoke coming from WTC7:

And here's the site layout:

WTC2 collapsed first, followed by WTC1. You can see the piece of debris that has hit the top of the Winter Garden and also some damage to SE corner of WFC3. This debris and damage could only have come from the collapse of WTC1, since WTC2 is too far away. Therefore at the time of this photograph, both towers had already collapsed. The only possible way that the cloud could be from a collapse would be if the debris fell and hit those buildings before the dust cloud reached them, which seems unlikely, but not impossible.

However, the photo of the smoke coming out of WTC7 proves nothing, and is actually pathetic when compared to other buildings that have been absolutely gutted by fire until they are virtual skeletons and yet not collapsed.

It's a well-known fact that there were diesel fuel tanks underneath the loading dock in WTC7 that had pipes and day-tanks on various floors.

* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.

If fire did reach any of the two 6,000 gallon tanks, or they were still pumping fuel up into the building through the generator feed pipes, this would create a huge amount of smoke, disproportionate to the size and intensity of the fire. Diesel makes lots of very dark, very thick smoke when it burns. The volume and thickness of smoke is not necessarily indicative of a raging inferno, as the lack of any awe-inspiring WTC7 fire pictures and the lack of any smoke coming out of the side of the building in the above photo will attest to.

Diesel doesn't explode unless it's a vapor and hot - that's why diesel engines have a "preheat" plug to get the cylinder warm enough to run, and that's exactly why diesel is used in tanks such as those in WTC7 and other buildings. So any claims of exploding diesel tanks is bogus, further supported by the fact that FEMA never mentioned any exploded tanks in their report. 24,000 gallons of petroleum on the other hand would be a disaster waiting to happen.

A look at other buildings in the complex, which sustained enormous damage and were gutted by fire without collapsing will further lead the critical thinker to surmise that there is no reasonable explanation for the symmetrical collapse of WTC7.

That being said, the smoke will be enough to convince the masses, and that is all FEMA/NIST need/want. Throw in something about the effects of diesel fuel chemical constituents on steel and the casual investigator will be convinced. That's why it puzzles me why NIST is taking so long to publish their WTC7 whitewash. It has already been shown how easily the public are convinced of what they already want to believe.

Believing that WTC1 & 2 collapsed on their own I can understand to a certain degree, but anyone who thinks WTC7 collapsed on its own is in hard-core denial.

[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:10 AM

This photo was taken sometime in the afternoon of September 11, before Building 7 collapsed. Building 7 is the skyscraper in the upper right of the photograph. The partially crushed and burned-out remains of Building 4 are in the middle of the photograph and Building 5 is the dark object to the right. The fact that fires are no longer visible in these buildings suggests it is the mid- to late afternoon.

The southwest facade and southeast-facing wall of Building 7 are visible but there are no signs of fire.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:23 AM
hey i just saw this on another forum, has anyone here on ATS seen the "new footage" yet ? footage was shot from across the river, video to be found at ?

I'm talking about this: (turn your volume up)

One angle. From across the river. The whole event caught in real time.
There are 9 detonations between 9:55 and 9:58 heard FROM ACROSS THE RIVER on his video before the South Tower collapse.

There is a series of explosions about 10 second before the North Tower collapse.

He catches the actual smoke plume that rises from the base of the towers. Not the one mistakenly shown in plane site, which is actually from the collapse of the South Tower. There is no doubt about it

another Smoking Gun ?

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:05 AM
Here is a great news clip of the BUY physics professor on mainstream tv beign allowed to say why he thinks the WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by explosives.

I wonder aloud...what would happen if in fact, enough overwhelming evidence coems out to show that WTC 1, 2 and 7...or even JUST 7 was brought down by explosives? What would all the skeptics say?

People need to wonder aloud what was in WTC7, and the physics/science to the fall. WTC7 could someday be one of the major smoking guns to this whole coverup.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by 8bitagent
People need to wonder aloud what was in WTC7, and the physics/science to the fall.

The majority of people do not even know that WTC7 collapsed. The majority of those who do know have already forgotten or have accepted the government's story. The majority of those who haven't accepted it will be convinced by the NIST report when it comes out. That leaves a very, very small percentage of people who are going to be chasing up the truth.

Don't underestimate NIST. They will walk in arse first to the WTC7 collapse, just as they did with the WTC towers, i.e. form a preconceived hypothesis and make it fit around the collapse. They will use clever language to disguise this method as its opposite, i.e. objective analysis without preconception. They've already shown this to be very convincing for the sheeple, and a handy tool for the shills.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 02:16 PM
(Edit: these were ALL videos taken on 9/11 2001, and not altered! End edit.)

I have found 1 eyewitness report of the WTC 7 collapse spectators who did hear explosions there. I do not expect more of them to be easily found at all, since everybody was kept away at a really big distance from that building, and demolition planners had had all day to get informed, that reports of explosions at the WTC 1 and 2 towers were all over the newschannels. So, that's why they decided to herd people away from WTC 7, since that building HAD to be destroyed, with all that evidence stored in OEM's databases, and not to forget, all those too damning files from other federal tenants they really wanted to see destroyed in a convenient and easy explainable way.

This is one reporter explaining that every fifteen or twenty minutes smaller secondary explosions were going off at WTC 7 and WTC 5. An extremely dangerous place to be, he said at the end :
""... The firemen were concerned that WTC 7 was going to collapse, building nr 5 was in danger of collapse... You hear smaller secondary explosions going off every fifteen or twenty minutes...""

The following 21 short videos with audio are all of very shocked people who witnessed and felt the bombs, even got blown off their feet by them :

Firefighters and press in the area were told to "get back" from WTC 7 because they were going to "pull-it". "Pulling" a building means taking it down with strategically placed demolition charges at the inner support columns so that the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity. It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.(click the same underlined _javascript link on the site)
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use (even though that's what it was built for) and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tentants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.

The IRS is the Internal Revenue Service, the tax people. How many damning tax files from how many corporations were destroyed?
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) : the collapse of Building 7 destroyed thousands of SEC case files, on companies such as WorldCom.

01. - All the talk about explosions in the WTC towers.

02. -
""...secondary explosions and then the subsequent collapses....""
03. -
""...The explosion blew me right over..."" and then he goes on telling about many explosions in both towers.
04. -
""...At ten thirty I tried to get out of the building, but as soon as I get out, I heard a second explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust, and then a firemarshall came in and said if there was a third explosion, this building might not last...""
05. -
""...there was a secondary device going of, and another explosion, and the chief, he thinks there were actually other devices that were planted in the building...""
06. -
""...It just went Booom, like a bomb went off [...] and we made it to the mezzanine, and another explosion...WHOOOM..right in front of me,whoooom...""
07. -
""...I was standing beside 1 World Trade Center and then I heard rumbling and we all started running, the glass that blew out and threw me on to the sidewalk, I couldn't see for 20 seconds, and then...""
08. -
"" we made our way to the stairway,..there was a heavy duty explosion...""
09. -
""...When I was 5 blocks away, I heard explosions, 3 thuds, and turned around to see the building we just got out kind of tipped over and folded in itself...""
10. -
""...We finally get to the lobby, ...and when we got to the lobby, there was this big explosion....""
11. -
""... I saw one of the towers blow ... and I saw from street level, I saw it exploded up, a giant rolling ball, a flame ...""
12. -
""...45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, there was, an explosion, it was way up where the fire was..and the whole building at that point bellied out, in flames, and everybody ran...""
13. -
""...All the sudden, it started like, it sounded like gunfire, you know, pang.pang.pang.pang.pang.pang, and then it was, it was sudden,,,three BIG explosions!...""
14. -
""... We went down from the 23rd floor...We made it to the eighth...BIG explosion...flew us back into the eigth floor...""
15. -
""...The explosion blew and knocked everybody over...""
16. -
""...We just heard another explosion [...] it's to unsafe to go in there...""

17. - (CNN censored the word explosion out!)
""... there was just a huge ... [censored] and enormous pieces of debris is falling - one right after the other...""
18. - (The uncensored real-time part!)
""... [...] and every few minutes you'll hear it like a small sort of a a rumbling sound, almost like an explosion sound and another chunk of it will come flying down into the street...""
19. -
Full interview with Rose Arce; CNN Producer on 911, broadcasted about 4 hours after the demolition af WTC-1. Again the word explosion censored out. CNN obviously got ordered to get those damning remarks out asap, the same day already.
The Administration was really rallying at topspeed to surpress all, unsafe for them, evidence.

20. -
""... And the bottom of that building was going out...""
21. -
""...It was just this incredible force of wind and debris that came actually UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground...""

Are, at least in the readers mind now, some or most of these videos in fact very convincing, that these people who were actually there and then, heard and experienced loud, big, huge explosions?
And that these were no jetfuel explosions in shafts just after impact, but most of them explosions with high velocity pressure blast fronts which knocked them off their feet, when they were long after impact trying to get out or were just out.
Any pressure from collapsing "pancaking" building floors would escape immediately up, where the least compression resistance was, there where huge open spaces were created by those broken floors. And eventual downward pressure would not behave like high velocity pressure blast fronts, compressed air from pancaking floors will behave very different from explosively compressed air.

Still any doubts left?

[edit on 14/11/05 by LaBTop]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:33 PM
LabTop, you do an excellent job of filling in so many holes in the 9-11 fiasco. And I notice that no one is ever game enough to answer your posts. For what it's worth, you get my WATS vote.

You have voted LaBTop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:35 PM
Pretty thorough argumentation :,104

These posts in that link above, will keep you all busy for a long time....

The conclusion is, that thermite is a very well possible cause of demolition in case of the 3 WTC towers.
And it would not show off as explosives.

However, since I saw that zoomed in photo from Sauron, the one detailing the 12 inch H-beam failure, on top of this page, there is another demolition theory to be added :

If you see those 3 burned-in holes in the upper part of that 12 inch horizontal beam in the foreground of the detailed picture, and observe the discolorisation caused by huge temperature differences around those holes, I start to opt for a new theory :

Pre-9/11 punctured horizontal crossbeams, prepared in advance by using on-site portable high powered lasers at strategic points in the horizontal cross-bearing beams between the main column packets of the 3 towers.
(The US-Army and several other armies -and the CIA- have these lasers in working order).
Or, thermite dotted crossbeams at various strategic places.
This would still leave the main columns standing firm in the days before 9/11, and only a very limited amount of strategicly placed super-thermite melting charges, devided over a few sections on the total height of the collumns, had to be attached to the OUTER core of the main columns packets in the 3 towers, the outer elevator core columns where the floors were attached to.
This would also explain the near perfect sinking of the towers into their footprints, and explain why we see in some of the actual footages of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses, a long high spine of INNER core columns (at least 100 m) still standing for a few seconds, before they also mostly collapsed from the vibrations of the collapse.
These inner core collumns would act as a square guiding rail, where all the floors and outer walls were shifting along on their way downwards during collapses.
You would not see many signs of explosions, btw.
And ALL the ignition would be radio controlled. These theories of miles of ignition cords running through buildings is an obvious lame one, we are not talking about relatively "poor" demolition companies needing to cut back on expenses, we are talking here at least about some deep-secret CIA level, with billions to spend every year from black ops, with no whatsoever accounting to the "public" or even their bosses.
They could use one of their usual techniques, and hardwire everything with GPS telephoneboards-triggered explosions, which can just as easily be triggered in a timely fashion as the demolition "pro's" do with their time delayed cords. (The " ", because the real pro's are the armies and the agencies, by FAR).
I could proof you my scenario any time, any day, just give me the hardware again, and an empty skyscraper. With a bit of luck we still have one standing in Madrid.
It could all have been done from inside the elevator shafts....on top of the cars. Just use a firemans key, and block that car at will at any point in the shafts.

It would be a totally different picture, namely lightning fast chemically melting the steel of the outer collumns away with super-thermite in the first second of an observed initial collapse of the top sections. It also explains the puddles of melted steel in the basements of ALL of those 3 collapsed towers, found weeks later. The crossbeams would be ripped off like note paper.
If you don't have any idea what a super-thermite melt will look like, do some searching, and be amazed, to say the least.

There seems the possibility that demolition workers would have cut those H-beams from that Sauron picture in the days after the collapses. In that case, why would they cut the top plate perfectly straight, and made such a mess of the vertical cut. I've never seen an acetylene-torch welder/cutter punching holes in a dangerous place like that, and then hoping the rest of the beam would not suddenly shear off and cut his legs off at the kneecaps or cut through his intestines. They cut the beams like butter with their torches, in straight cuts horizontally and then vertically.
And H-beams shearing off, or getting ripped off by debris, leaving holes like that in the vertical plate section, while still perfectly cutting top plates, that's not happening. Only when the steel has soft spots in that plate, like laser-punched holes. Or dotted thermite charges attached to it, which burned holes in the plates. It then acts as a tear-off paper page in a note block during a collapse.
Neither are there signs of heavy equipment being used in that spot, to tear torch-dotted beams off with a grab-crane. Why should they, it would be an insane move, the building was going to be demolitioned by explosives shortly after, to get quickly rid of the post-collapse mess. And they would risk a total collapse any second while tearing at those beams.

PS: Thanks for the nice gesture, wecomeinpeace.
However, I do not understand the intrinsic meaning, since, besides you, also Musclor and another gave me her/his vote lately, but I see my points only go up 1 point per one of my own posts. And when staff applauded me per U2U.

Mods : Just curious, has this WATS-vote-thingy nothing to do with accumulating ATS points? Is it a monthly sort of "jackpot" contest?

As soon as my points allow it, I will be able to upload my own pics and animated seismic graphs to the onboard ATS-database.
Which will counter and refute the seismic conclusion proposed by one of the authors of above link, and refute one of the main conclusions of the seismologists at LDEO.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:06 PM
Excellent Posts!

Heres some more on that Prof's paper...

Some extremely interesting reads going on in this thread.

Here is an interesting story i found about an unscathed credit card from one of the passengers found at ground zero.

Im curious, what do you guys think would happen if the American people found out that their own government was behind 9-11 and not muslims? Interesting to speculate about....

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'd like to see what type of 110-floor building you are basing this on, the types of explosives you are assuming were used, and what methods you are assuming were used. And then I'd like to see how assumptions are scientific.

That was a quick extrapolation of existing demolitions, just for fun. And probably rather close to the truth.

1. Any 110-floor building, 200ftx200ft sq floor space. Steel and concrete construction. (limited choices)
2. Standard industrial demolitions. The type that work, in the real world, not the imaginary.
3. Standard industrial demolition methods, not fantasy.
4. Engineering and logic tend to be scientific in the extreme. There are no assumptions in Engineering. Any exceptions to that rule, are not logical.

The scary part, is that any extremely large building, would be extremely difficult to bring down in a controlled demolition. It would take years and lots of labor and effort to do properly.

Working with good data, will give good results.
Blindly accepting fiction as fact will result in more fiction.
Bad science will always be bad science.
Bad logic will always be bad logic.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:17 AM

The wind was blowing from north to south that day. We all saw that huge smoke cloud drift to the south point of Manhattan and over the Hudson river. That's why the smoke just above the southwest facade of WTC 7 drifts to the south in that picture.
If you observe the small sharp shadow on the roof of the right blueish building, you see that it is around 16-17 p.m. (Sun in the West, descending.) And the shadow of the northwest corner of the WFC 2 building falls about 6 meter on the east side of the Verizon building, but not covering it all to the top, misses it by about 3 meter.
WTC 2 collapsed at 10:28:31. So a dust cloud from the second collapse is out of question.
If we really did our best, (sun's azimuth, longitude, lattitude etc.), we could come up with a fairly accurate time on September 11 for that picture with that little shadow near WTC 7 engulfed in smoke. Just needed the exact vertical height of that little roof, throwing that sharp shadow. Or knew some more heights of the Verizon etc.
But my guess is that the picture was taken not far before WTC 7 collapsed.
Still, my question stands : why does a wind which sucks most of the smoke out from the south facade of that building, and which has its windward north facade still totally intact with no broken window panes in it, caused according to NIST a fatal raging fire somewhere in that building, which was the cause of collapse? Most of the hot gasses were sucked out all the time to just one side, the south, obstructing a total spread-out of the fires into the north facade. Like a closed chimney with one open front, that will also belly out in the room, with lots of oxigen starved smoke, but the fire front not moving backwards.

NIST 1-8 report excerpts :
Read the whole chapter 5.9 (Page 162 to page 165/294)

The Con Edison operators arriving at the scene at WTC 7 wanted to know if they should cut off the power at the WTC 7 power station. It was decided to leave the power on ... The Con Edison personnel also indicated that fuel tanks were located in the lower level of WTC 7. However, they could not determine if the fuel tanks were involved with the fires burning in the building.
FDNY personnel reported that they did not see any indication of burning liquid fuels before the building collapsed. ...

So who decided that those dangerous high-pressurized diesel-fuel lines via their electrical pumps kept operating?

Regarding one question you asked about possible NIST arm-flapping about 15 ppm (parts per million) of sulphur in diesel fuel stored in tanks in the WTC 7 building, which sulphur could have accelerated the weakening of the steel columns while burning away :

About sulphur contamination in diesel fuels acting as "catalyst" in some mysterious process NIST could come up with for weakening heated steel :
""The electric-arc furnace is another modern development; it provides a means of making large quantities of high-grade steel, with the advantages of positive temperature control, freedom from contamination of the product by the fuel, and simultaneous deoxidation and desulfurization actions.""
""A sulfide ore is commonly roasted, i.e., heated in air. The metal of the ore combines with oxygen of the air to form an oxide, and the sulfur of the ore also combines with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide, which, being a gas, passes off. The metallic oxide is then treated with a reducing agent. When a carbonate ore is heated, the oxide of the metal is formed, and carbon dioxide is given off; the oxide is then reduced.""

If you want to perform some electric-arc steel-melting at home to check eventual NIST theories :

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:57 PM
The Prof is building support from among his peers...

In fact, it seems as if anyone who gives serious study to this changes their mind to some degree about some aspect of this convoluted nightmare. Somethings fishy and one day we will know exactly what it is.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:47 PM
From you Rense link, I will add that linking Rense is taking by some here as a kin to quoting the Nation Inquirer. At any rate Rense posts what he finds just like ATS.

The BYU physics professor who believes the WTC collapsed from a controlled demolition isn't alone in the academic community, as a group of more than 60 colleagues from two universities also agreed with Professor Steven E. Jones' conclusions.

Jones told the Arctic Beacon Saturday in a telephone conversation from Provo, Utah, he first presented his explosive conclusions at Brigham Young University (BYU) on September 22, to 60 people from the BYU and Utah Valley State College faculties, including professors of Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Geology, Mathematics and Psychology.
"In fact, after I researched how Building 7 fell, I am certain there existed pre-positioned explosives to bring down the three buildings."

[edit on 15/11/2005 by Sauron]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:19 PM
And Sauron's opinion would be a kin to taking the advice of the local village idiot....

Read the Prof's paper before making judgement.

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Zamboni
And Sauron's opinion would be a kin to taking the advice of the local village idiot....

Read the Prof's paper before making judgement.

Um, Sauron is a supporter of the 9/11 truth movement.
He just said other people will right off a Rense link but was pointing out that this Rense link is just info on Renses site quoting the Prof and is not written by Rense, making it legit.

Ie. Sauron was saying to others, don't write of the Rense link the other person posted. He was doing a Bush and 'pre-empting' an attack, thou doing it peacefully with factual quotes to explain why.

Not to put words in Saurons mouth but i'm sure he'll agree.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in