"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

by **DBtv** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:24 am

also refutes the innocence of the PTB on 911. "How" leads immediately to "Who". Because if the box cutter wielding Arabs didn't bring the buildings down all by themselves, someone had to help by setting up the CD. Cui bono? We know who benefitted, and it wasn't Arabs. I could see the truth as the buildings made their controlled descent that bloody morning.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:41 am

Speculating: many high-current electrical cables must have been cut when the planes struck. Could electrical arcing be the cause? High-current electrical arcs <a href="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-81386">can melt steel</a>: "About one-quarter of the world's steel is produced by the electric-arc method, which uses high-current electric arcs to melt steel scrap and convert it into liquid steel of a specified chemical composition and temperature." I'm not saying that's how it happened. I'm saying, has that been considered?

by **DBtv** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:49 am

Wouldn't high voltage electrical arcing sufficient to create pools of molten metal that remain melted for over six weeks be visible during the event?

by **smithtalk** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:59 am

dont get me wrong jeff, i agree with your basic statements  "I don't have the expertise to evaluate the claims." nor do i "I don't want to pretend to know what "thermite reactions" are supposed to look like." nor do i but have you seen the steve jones video showing thermite reactions, if so do you think that it is bullshit "I don't like evidence that depends on someone telling me what I'm supposed to be seeing in a picture or on a video." nor do i but there is a practical limit to this approach, at some point leaps have to be taken and reliance on other people is essential, i dont 'know' that the earth is round, i cant see it with my own eyes, i have to rely on physicists and photos, my cumulative knowledge tells me that it almost certainly is "I'm skeptical of the motivation of some of its intel-connected proponents." 100% agree "I think "How" has effectively buried "Who."" agree with poster following you, for a lot people, including myself, 'how' has led directly to 'who', i have learnt more about the people behind the banks, world order organisations, governments and parralel governments in the last 12 months than i thought possible, everyday leading to another character who has played a role, (todays for instance was william stephenson ) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stephenson</a> "I'm turned off by the "with us or against us" absolutes with which many of its adherents speak." again agree "It's fine for some. But for me, this is a dead end." disagree, knowing that there is a plausible and provable method to collapse those towers that the available evidence supports bolsters my feeling that the jigsaw piece fits properly into the picture

by **Trifecta** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:32 am

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM&mode=related&search=">www.youtube.com/watch?v=B...ed&search=</a> you can see the explosions here <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRn7BpEiNEA&mode=related&search=">www.youtube.com/watch?v=V...ed&search=</a> the sound analysis seems now to be missing of youtube and I can no longer find the clip from across the wate where you can actually hear five or six massive underground explosions..oh and the yellow smoke? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0a6eNw98A">www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0a6eNw98A</a>

by **greencrow0** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:38 am

jeff I can understand your skepticism in one way...we all have to be skeptical and I am of people like hufscneid (sp?) who I overheard on a radio broadcast recently dismissing 'Loose Change' as disinfo...and those who pile the culpability for the entire event on Israel. There's certainly a lot of disinfo going around. That's why I always start off with the physical evidence (in this case, videotaped huge 'nuclear like' explosions with 'brown smoke' (consistent with nuclear blasts), pulverized concrete and large pools of molten metal. Then we have the documented seismic activity. Then, we have the documented spiked incidence of diabetes and lymphoma in NYC particularly amongst citizens and responders who were near the scene. Confronting the physical evidence is the same...whether it is 9/11 or a paranormal experience or child abuse. It always involves confrontation of the evidence, personal judgment of liklihood of different scenarios and intuition. gc

by **isachar** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:58 am

Yesterday, on MSNBC.com, there was a link to a video aired on 9/11/06 featuring Tom Brokaw (think it was him). This piece, featured the hangar at JFK that houses the last remnants of the WTC's salvaged from the site. The point of the video was that these remnants were going to become some kind of museum/shrine for 9/11 and the WTC's. About 2:25 min into the video, they showed something that, in light of the CD debate, Jones' work, and the highly speculative nuke proposition (at this point, it doesn't even deserve the term theory), is stunning. They showed a huge mass of agglomerated steel and detritus and melted metal that had been extracted from near the bottom of the pile. Brokaw notes that this mass was subjected to temperatures close to those at the center of the earth!!! THIS IS ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - both criminal and scientific. And its laying in a hangar next to a runway at JFK right now. Even better, this evidence has an official chain of custody. If this large mass and/or materials within it was subjected to temperatures that cause steel to melt and/or has a radioactive signature of something other than background/normal levels, it is evidence of the largest crime and mass murder to have ever occurred in the U.S. That chunk could send a lot of people to prison, and even to the gallows. Someone needs to capture this video before it also disappears down the memory hole. BTW, if there is/was melted steel produced on 9/11 the 'official' conspiracy theory and NIST's analyses are utterly worthless as none of them account for any mechanism to account for melted steel. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/14/06 1:36 pm

by **FourthBase** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:07 am

#1 - I want to see that OKC video! #2 - I never got any feedback about the synchronized presentation from 911eyewitness.com, with the video/sound/soundwaves matched up. I thought it was quite compelling, seeming to show multiple explosions before the collapses that are too large be attributed to pre-collapse building cracking.

by **isachar** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:16 am

FB, don't know about an OKC one, but the one I saw was a piece that was produced for and shown on MSNBC on 9/11/06. I found out about it yesterday and saw it on the msnbc.com website and tried to link to it then but was unable to do so. I don't know how to use msnbc's search feature well enough to try to find it, but it definitely aired on 9/11/06. Can you post a link to the synchronized video you are referring to? TIA - isachar on edit - FB, this appears to be the video you are referring to: <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603">video.google.com/videopla...8587461603</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 9/14/06 9:38 am

by **professorpan** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's fine for some. But for me, this is a dead end.<hr></blockquote> Amen. I can't even believe we're discussing the possibility that a nuke was used. What's next -- a theory about Deros zapping the WTC with their death rays? Christ, I hesitate to even post that for fear someone will read it and run with it and create a YouTube video and turn up in an interview on FOX. The real criminals must be laughing their asses off. They don't need to cover their tracks -- leave that to the conspiracy community and its circle-jerk self-immolation to bury the truth under piles of molten bullshit. Take a step back, 9/11 minutiae obsessives, and think about the other dark, defining moment of this generation -- Hurricane Katrina. We have a clear case of blatant genocide against the poor and blacks of New Orleans, who were left to die while their overlords shopped for shoes, played air guitar, and went about their business as usual as the water rose, ignoring the screams and pleas of people swimming like rats in sewer. Babies dying of thirst? Check. The elderly left to die of heat stroke in nursing homes? Check. People screaming for food and water and medicine for days while their government blocks them from crossing a bridge to safety? Check. I can't mince words about what I witnessed -- the U.S. government killed its own people by purposeful inaction and neglect. Heckuva job, America! We have a very clear picture of the perpetrators and their victims, extensively -- exhaustively -- documented. So... what the fuck happened to the criminals? So far, I haven't seen Bush, Cheney, Condi, or Chertoff in leg chains. I don't see people holding conferences and demanding the (metaphorical) heads of those responsible. Katrina doesn't need a "truth" movement, anyway. The truth is appallingly clear. Katrina, and 9/11, need a consequences movement. So, yeah, I'm bitter. I see 9/11 Truthsters burying themselves in an avalanche of Alex Jonesian rubble. No need for a disinformation campaign to bury the truth when the truth seekers implode all by themselves in a controlled demolition of idiocy. What's my point here? Good question, as I'm not even sure. I just feel like I'm watching smart people squander their energy arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- while the criminals and psychopaths laugh and the bodies pile higher. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=professorpan>professorpan</A> at: 9/14/06 10:23 am

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:34 pm

Pan, mind if I plaster this: Katrina doesn't need a "truth" movement, anyway. The truth is appallingly clear. Katrina, and 9/11, need a consequences movement. over at the quotes-only thread?

by **professorpan** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Pan, mind if I plaster this:<hr></blockquote> Plaster away.

by **nomo** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:45 pm

I concur. This is bullshit. I mean seriously, we all know those damn towers were an optical illusion to begin with. Think about it: no towers + no planes + nukes = conspiracy nutjobs. Bah.

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm not saying that's how it happened. I'm saying, has that been considered?<hr></blockquote> Hey, here's one that I haven't heard yet I just thunk up all by me lonesome over the morning coffee: Have you ever fully read the US Patent Office's Patent Number <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=16&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=4686605&OS=4686605&RS=4686605">4686605</a> yet? There's some joyeously nasty things inside it that would cream every pair of pants in a Smokey Room. For instance: "The region is excited by electron cyclotron resonance heating of electrons which are already present and/or artifically created in the region to thereby increase the charged particle energy and ultimately the density of the region. " "Sufficient power, e.g., 10.sup.15 joules, can be applied so that the altered plasma can be trapped on the field line between mirror points and will oscillate in space for prolonged periods of time. By this embodiment, a plume of altered plasma can be established at selected locations for communication modification or other purposes. " And here's my personal favorite: "Still further, plumes in accordance with the present invention can be formed to simulate and/or perform the same functions as performed by the detonation of a "heave" type nuclear device without actually having to detonate such a device.. " Get it? This thing can form 'plumes' of energy that can be directed anywhere on the face of the Earth and cause nuclear-type detonations WITHOUT a nuclear device. Take a deep breath. The air that just entered your lungs is the same shit they could have theoretically used as plumes shoved down the throat of the Twin Towers. Remember that 911 video we saw a couple of weeks ago with the wierd line in it that everyone thought was a (insert your answer here)? Hmm.. This technology doesn't exist in Afghanistan operated by a fanatical Kraft macaroni & cheese-eating RagHead, it's owned and operated by the United States Military and is housed in Alaska: <img src="http://www.ecplanet.com/pic/2003/06/1056249779/haarp_struttura2.jpg" style="border:0;"/> One more parting shot: "Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns or altering solar absorption patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device. Also as alluded to earlier, molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved." Anyone care to say hello to the 2005 Hurricane Season? What can be used for Good can be used for Ill. Slam one of these 'plumes' down a Hurricane's Eye, and you'll get the wondrous effect like we saw last year when Wilma went from Tropical Storm to Catagory 5 Hurricane within.. EIGHTEEN HOURS? ok, bye. ____________________ Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.

by **Sweejak** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:00 pm

The first seismic spike evidence stories, which I thought for a long time were the smoking gun, have been dismissed by the guy who published the measurements. However this is pretty interesting. Seismic Proof- 9-11 was an inside Job by Craig T Furlong and Gordon Ross. <a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html">www.scholarsfor911truth.o...Proof.html</a> I'll wait on this one until I see some counter responses. One would have to assume that the radar and seismic times are indeed accurate, in which case Furlong and Ross have a pretty hard nut for NIST to crack. If your into how citizen investigators are responding you can check this thread. I scanned it but I really don't have the time. <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105267&mesg_id=106654">www.democraticunderground..._id=106654</a> Also, apparently quicknthedead is Craig T Furlong. Regarding the video shot across the river and the sounds of explosions, that is pretty amazing, but I don't find it in other videos.

"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

Anything that refutes the "plane fuel melted steel"

Re: Anything that refutes the "plane fuel melted steel&

High voltage electricity

i agree

we heard the explosions

Re: we heard the explosions

URGENT - Evidence Does Exist!

Re: URGENT - Evidence Doesl Exist!

Re: URGENT - Evidence Doesl Exist!

Rant mode: On

Re: Rant mode: On

Re: Rant mode: On

Re: Rant mode: On

Re: Arcadia's Rant mode: Definately On

Re: URGENT - Evidence Doesl Exist!

Who is online