PhD Kevin Barrett in an interview with Russia Today RT about who really did 9/11

Originally posted by weedwhacker

... what these "theorists" can't seem to figure out, as yet, is that thermite materials do NOT "explode". They burn, very hot. No 'Boom!'

Interesting science says your dead wrong.

How much do you know about chemistry?

reply to post by Danbones

how many firemaen wrer in the building when silverstein made the comment?

I will address your question only after you have addressed the one I asked of you first . In case you have forgotten what it was , I will type it again , for the third or fourth time now .

Where is your proof that Silverstein said they "blew the building up" ? As has already been shown , your reference to the "pull it" comment doesn't qualify , since you can't prove that he was using it in the context that you are falsely trying to convince others that he was .

Typical truther tactic ... Make some false claims , tout them as facts , provide nothing to support those claims , and then change the subject upon realizing you have painted yourself into a corner .

Curiously , I didn't expect anything else from you .

reply to post by Realtruth


Once again, using an example of a STAGED (and altered formula(??), just for the visual effect) YouTube video. While purposely leaving out the rest of my post, where I sourced RENSE??? I actually think Rense is usually full of it, but many "truth" sites like to cite them...unless it's inconvenient for them, I suppose....?

Anyway, that video. Watching carefully, I saw ONE part "aluminum powder" (dry) mixed with at least THREE parts Cupric Oxide (dry). Cupric Oxide is copper-based. Oh, look there's a Wiki entry:

Another use for cupric oxide is as a substitute for iron oxide in thermite. This can turn the thermite from an incendiary to a low explosive.

en.wikipedia.org...(II)_oxide

"substitute" for the iron oxide.

NOTE I highlighted "low explosive"?

Here, this article: www.tpub.com...

And, a Wiki too:
en.wikipedia.org...

Low explosives are compounds where the rate of decomposition proceeds through the material at less than the speed of sound. The decomposition is propagated by a flame front (deflagration) which travels much more slowly through the explosive material than a shock wave of a high explosive.

[skip]

Low explosives are normally employed as propellants. Included in this group are gun powders and light pyrotechnics, such as flares and fireworks.
en.wikipedia.org...

Please search through the Steven Jones' junk "work" (and the handful of other self-proclaimed "experts" who have chimed in) and you will notice a LOT of emphasis placed on the "iron-rich" properties, and so forth...what he seems to use to assert the presence of thermitic materials.

Where is the copper???

How about reading up on it, in Rethinking Thermite.

You can also web-search (I will NOT link) for thermite formulas, and other information. Remember, many of the "truth movement" websites started to back-peddle furiously, when it was pointed out how difficult it would be to use thermite, for a "demolition" .... so, they invented this "painted on" notion. AS IF, they would have you believe, that a thin layer (look at dried paint, to gauge thickness) would have ANY effect on the thick steel!!!

reply to post by okbmd


If you buy the amended story line "Lucky" Larry "pulled" the firefighters from the building, I got a bridge to sell you.

There were NO firefighters in the building when looking at the firemen's logs.

How about digging up the doctor "Lucky" Larry was supposed to be at that morning. Usually, like clock work, "Lucky" would have breakfast at the towers. How "Lucky," this lightning rod was able to be absent that day with the rest of his family that were a mainstay for breakfast is not a coincidence. He is guilty as hell.

"Lucky" Larry got his start running a strip club. He was mentioned by fellow tribe members, back in the '60's, as being the biggest hoodlum/crime boss in the group. I could only take their word for it then, now I know it is gospel.

"Lucky" is ghetto trash. He belongs there and needs to be sent back in an ashtray of a VW.

reply to post by beijingyank


What you and other truthers cannot seem to get your heads around is that :-

(a) Larry Silverstein was not calling the shots on 9/11; FDNY was.

(b) To suppose that Larry Silverstein, if involved in the mass murder of thousands, would calmly admit to it on tv is the ultimate in silliness.

Originally posted by SL55T0T0
It's such a shame how a this good man with great docentry skills isn't alowed to teach anymore for speaking out about this, its really sad... We are still very much in the dark ages if this good man and all the others that suffered the same fate dont get they're life back

OK F THAT! " THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING" !!!!!!! ARE YOU F ING KIDDING ME? THIS IS BIGGER THAN ANYTHING ELSE>>>> UFOS>>>>MICHAEL JACKSON>>>>>MONARCH>>>>>NWO>>>>ILLUMINATI.... someone has to finish off these occultist scum and feed them to the lions..... REALLY?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Let's look at your original quote one more time. You say "thermite materials do NOT explode" and even put it in caps. Ah, but they do.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

... what these "theorists" can't seem to figure out, as yet, is that thermite materials do NOT "explode". They burn, very hot. No 'Boom!'

All I was doing was showing you one example of a thermite material that does explode, so with that your claim is invalid. Do you understand how logic works? First present statements, then a conclusion if one statement is invalid, so is the conclusion.

Whether or not it was used on 911 is a different story.

Altered? so what, it's a thermite material and again you say thermites "do NOT explode".

Don't make statements that will undermine any part of your argument or will jeopardize your conclusion.

You got caught making a false or an invalid claim and now your trying to wiggle out of it.

Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Once again, using an example of a STAGED (and altered formula(??), just for the visual effect) YouTube video. While purposely leaving out the rest of my post, where I sourced RENSE??? I actually think Rense is usually full of it, but many "truth" sites like to cite them...unless it's inconvenient for them, I suppose....?

Anyway, that video. Watching carefully, I saw ONE part "aluminum powder" (dry) mixed with at least THREE parts Cupric Oxide (dry). Cupric Oxide is copper-based. Oh, look there's a Wiki entry:

Another use for cupric oxide is as a substitute for iron oxide in thermite. This can turn the thermite from an incendiary to a low explosive.

en.wikipedia.org...(II)_oxide

"substitute" for the iron oxide.

NOTE I highlighted "low explosive"?

Here, this article: www.tpub.com...

And, a Wiki too:
en.wikipedia.org...

Low explosives are compounds where the rate of decomposition proceeds through the material at less than the speed of sound. The decomposition is propagated by a flame front (deflagration) which travels much more slowly through the explosive material than a shock wave of a high explosive.

[skip]

Low explosives are normally employed as propellants. Included in this group are gun powders and light pyrotechnics, such as flares and fireworks.
en.wikipedia.org...

Oh yes RT – Russia Today? Why don’t you pull up some interview with RT on the Russian Apartment bombings, going down the road of government involvement?

It’s not that I don’t think or believe that the American Government was involved in the events of 9/11. It’s just you’ve tied two rogue dogs together and sent them off to bite each other.

Propaganda, well done you.

Originally posted by okbmd


Where is your proof that Silverstein said they "blew the building up" ? As has already been shown , your reference to the "pull it" comment doesn't qualify , since you can't prove that he was using it in the context that you are falsely trying to convince others that he was .

Well, he never said "blow the building up," so that is an unanswerable question. He SAID "pull it." The building didn't BLOW UP, it was PULLED (as per boon's explanation of industry usage of the term). A pulled building implodes, it does not "blow up." If you watch the footage of the take down of the twin towers and building 7 you will see examples of that.

reply to post by Alfie1


Your logic is lame. You apologize for a criminal.

The murder of 3000 innocent New Yorkers is the work of a psychopath. This is a mad act that originated in a sick mind. You can’t use normal logic to understand the insane criminal mind.

You remind me of the situation of the psychotic street person talking to a fire hydrant. And then you watch another person go up to him and begin to talk with him. Tell me Freud, who is the crazy one?

Quite contrary to your logic, the psychopath loves to boast about his crimes. This is because according to his unbalanced mind, he is too smart to get caught and even if nabbed, his superior intellect will get him out it.

The public does not understand a psychopath will continue the mayhem until he is imprisoned or dead. They just keep on rolling. Let's see...

3000 dead 911 New Yorkers, leads to 8,000,000 innocent Afghanis and Iraqis, depleted uranium is released to kill millions more for the next 8 billion years, and now we have the tumor machines at the airport that everyone will queue for one time or another.

Talk about an psychopath's wet dream!

The sooner these criminals are taken out the better for it will be all of us. "Lucky" Larry is but one of them.

reply to post by Judge_Holden


I am not wading into this as a truther or a skeptic but the whole deal on hard evidence with regards to science is a slippery slope.

There are many things we take as gospel or fact when in reality they are just a theory or a belief (the Big Bang, Creation, dark matter, heck no one really understands gravity for that matter).

If I start using words like "fact" or "hard evidence" on human events which border on the chaotic (this was not a simple event), IMHO, I accept a whole lot of exposure to criticism from many directions.

I realize this is not very red-meaty for this discussion but merely my two cents.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Danbones

 

how many firemaen wrer in the building when silverstein made the comment?

I will address your question only after you have addressed the one I asked of you first . In case you have forgotten what it was , I will type it again , for the third or fourth time now .

Where is your proof that Silverstein said they "blew the building up" ? As has already been shown , your reference to the "pull it" comment doesn't qualify , since you can't prove that he was using it in the context that you are falsely trying to convince others that he was .

Typical truther tactic ... Make some false claims , tout them as facts , provide nothing to support those claims , and then change the subject upon realizing you have painted yourself into a corner .

Curiously , I didn't expect anything else from you .

Way to dodge a very good question...
From what I heard the firemen left WTC. The question is when??
If it was before Silverstein"s "pull it" comment then he obviously wasn't talking about them..
Seems to me a question you'd rather not answer..Wonder why??

reply to post by beijingyank

"Lucky" Larry got his start running a strip club. He was mentioned by fellow tribe members, back in the '60's, as being the biggest hoodlum/crime boss in the group.

Well that dirty little bastard ! I guess that settles it then . Thank you for providing such fine supporting hearsay evidence that proves the dirty little crook was involved in staging 9/11 . Standards of proof like this right here may be the breakthrough that truthers have been searching for .

I mean Good God ! We all know that looking at nude females makes you want to orchestrate the most elaborate domestic false-flag attack in the history of this nation .

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack

 

Astonishing, someone gave you a star, when you wrote a post, claiming I said something, when in fact it seems to have been poor reading comprehension on your part. Now, unless you find, in my post, the SPECIFIC words where I wrote:

....lol, I needed a laugh..The planes wings hit with such force that they liquified....

And, those bold words, emphasised to be exact here....WHERE did I write that? Find the post, and quote me, or else realize that you have displayed a TYPICAL "truther" tactic. Know what it is??

Here's another example:

....but the engines bounced off the walls?? Now thats funny...

The underlined, and bold part there. WHERE did I say that? Find, and post my exact quotes.

Is it possible you read, yet not understand? OR, as per the "tactic" I mentioned earlier....is THAT your game???

One or the other. Fess up to poor reading comprehension; or else you MUST admit a determined effort to alter intent, and spin the results to your liking. Disgusting, if the latter, wouldn't you agree???

I expect this display, here, to be a record of the shenanigans that are in constant use, by those who cling to this "inside-job" 9/11 fantasy...so desperate are they??

edit on 28 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

Ahh, rather than answer what sort of force those 2, 7' wide, 3500kg engines traveling at around 500mph and still running, would do to the wall, you come up with lies instead...

Firstly, my comprehension skills are fine..
I did NOT quote you about the liquified wings if you bother to look but I wonder how you would explain the wings dissapearing into the building..The concept was from Modern Mechanics...

And no, you din't exactly say this,

....but the engines bounced off the walls?? Now thats funny...

I just shortened your usual long drawn out comment which came down to the same point..
You believe the engines deflected off the walls as opposed to me saying bounced..
WOW, you are a worry WW..Here is your words..

When those engines hit, they began to immediately self-destruct....like shrapnel, every rotating part was flung outward, with great force. Individual pieces, NOT one big hunk of metal, at its stated dry (or even wet) weightWhen those engines hit, they began to immediately self-destruct....like shrapnel, every rotating part was flung outward, with great force. Individual pieces, NOT one big hunk of metal, at its stated dry (or even wet) weight.

Flung outward, sounds like bounced off to me..

reply to post by backinblack

Way to dodge a very good question...

I'm just playing by the rules that you guys keep at the table . Still waiting to see proof that luckylarry admitted to blowing up the building ...

Meanwhile , a thirty-second google search will answer that question for you . Why is it that you guys hold us to standards that you don't even apply to yourselves ?

Danbones stated that he heard luckylarry tell Kevin Spacey that they blew the building up . I'm simply asking him to substantiate this absurd claim , something he can't do . Nor can you .

Prove to me that luckylarry used "pull it" in the context that you guys are saying he did . Otherwise , you guys are still simply making false claims , in some twisted perverse desire to convince yourselves that the sky is falling .

The whole "pull it" issue has been debated to the point of death on these threads , and the answer lies within numerous threads . I refuse to do your homework for you just so you can tell me I am wrong , so use the search function . I already know the answer , hopefully , it won't take you another nine years to see the fallacy of non-logical theories .

reply to post by Judge_Holden


Uh, no, that is not it's length... the actual length is more than twice that. But to be fair, the fuselage is nowhere near that diameter either. It is less than 20 ft.