mcrom901 Posted June 29, 2009 #226 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Yet you continue to believe in your fantasy even when verifiable proof that you are, at the very least, mistaken is offered to you...? what is your opinion about the controlled demolition of the wtc buildings??? 9/11: BLUEPRINT FOR TRUTH Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth! and also about the used nano-thermites??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted June 29, 2009 #227 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Why? because it was a plane piloted by arabs that were associated with Al Qaeda and were hoping to start a glocal war in which teh 12th Iman would return and burn the children of the infidels in hell. Pretty simple actually. In most cases, you'll find that the simple answers are generally right. Why is that so hard to believe but, "Bush did it" is so easy to swallow? and i suppose under the instructions of tim osman? if you get the time watch this....... Fabled Enemies best of luck..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted June 29, 2009 #228 Share Posted June 29, 2009 and i suppose under the instructions of tim osman? You throw some piece of toilet paper up here, with no value whatsoever, and expect to be taken seriously? Step to the back of the line- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merril Posted June 29, 2009 #229 Share Posted June 29, 2009 The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem Zakheim Seeks To Corral, Reconcile 'Lost' Spending Improving Financial Performance at DoD Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Plan (FIAR) Overview and Explanation- First FIAR Report, 2005 There seems to be a lot at those links that might shed some light on the subject of financial accounting relating to DoD activities. Information of what were and what are their assets and liabilites, and their general explanation. Whatever outside records and ongoing business relationships they had just prior to September 11, 2001 surely continued. And, they must have had some sort of contingency and emergency plans to bridge the time until they could rebuild and begin to restore order to whatever systems and processes were interrupted. This is for those who can't, or won't read. It offers 1000% more information and explanation than the usual "Missing money! At least, that is what I want to ram down the throats of the unsuspecting!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted June 29, 2009 #230 Share Posted June 29, 2009 At least, that is what I want to ram down the throats of the unsuspecting!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #231 Share Posted June 29, 2009 mcrom901, Do you want the short version or the long one? The short version is: WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were prepped for controlled demolition in the weeks before the operation, probably with a baby-nuke in the basement. On 9-11, the hijacked aircraft took off and were taken over by the radio control aircraft. An alternete version is that the planes that actually hit the towers were aircraft the CIA already owned and rigged and replaced the commercial planes while on the ground or later, during flight. Everybody on the planes were killed by a good dose of VX or something similar. The planes were then guided by remote control into the buildings. The operator almost missed WTC 2. They let the buildings burn for a few minutes for crowd effect and then set off the demolition and thermite charges. Just like it was planned, the buildings came down in a classic 'controlled demolition' fashion, with the additional thermite and maybe nuclear help to completely destroy the remains. Go ahead and nit-pic it to death. All in my humble opinion, as requested, KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted June 29, 2009 #232 Share Posted June 29, 2009 mcrom901, Do you want the short version or the long one? The short version is: WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were prepped for controlled demolition in the weeks before the operation, probably with a baby-nuke in the basement. On 9-11, the hijacked aircraft took off and were taken over by the radio control aircraft. An alternete version is that the planes that actually hit the towers were aircraft the CIA already owned and rigged and replaced the commercial planes while on the ground or later, during flight. Everybody on the planes were killed by a good dose of VX or something similar. The planes were then guided by remote control into the buildings. The operator almost missed WTC 2. They let the buildings burn for a few minutes for crowd effect and then set off the demolition and thermite charges. Just like it was planned, the buildings came down in a classic 'controlled demolition' fashion, with the additional thermite and maybe nuclear help to completely destroy the remains. Go ahead and nit-pic it to death. All in my humble opinion, as requested, KennyB cheers kenny..... the whole world agrees with you Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe The Open Chemical Physics Journal Volume 2 ISSN: 1874-4125 Contents Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007 Abstract We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 29, 2009 #233 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) cheers kenny..... the whole world agrees with you if I didn't know that you weren't being satirical, I'd have to assume that that was satirical. Oh, yes, while I'm here, Kenny, or anyone else who insists that the planes couldn't possibly have actually been flown by anyone, it doesn't even have to be the "official" hijackers, I wonder if you or someone could please explain why they couldn't just have been flown by someone, and they had to have been remotely controlled or holograms or missiles or whatever else one's preferred theory might be? Edited June 29, 2009 by 747400 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunk Posted June 29, 2009 #234 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Kenny you claim not to be a truther but you keep spouting the worst of their nonsense. Mini-nukes? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidhead Posted June 29, 2009 #235 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Thanks for the political opinion. Now see if you can comment on the topic. lol... remember what SSSsoul said to you at the start of this thread?.. last post of page 3.. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...30&start=30 It goes double for me too... ..take care... I hope your day is as enjoyable as it can possibly be Edited June 29, 2009 by acidhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcrom901 Posted June 29, 2009 #236 Share Posted June 29, 2009 if I didn't know that you weren't being satirical, I'd have to assume that that was satirical. Oh, yes, while I'm here, Kenny, or anyone else who insists that the planes couldn't possibly have actually been flown by anyone, it doesn't even have to be the "official" hijackers, I wonder if you or someone could please explain why they couldn't just have been flown by someone, and they had to have been remotely controlled or holograms or missiles or whatever else one's preferred theory might be? without definitive proof.... its all speculation.... but does that change anything.... whether the planes were piloted or remote controlled...... whether switched or whatever..... i suspect.... they must have also had a remote control in operation.... just in case something went wrong with the pilots..... god knows!!!! but that doesn't change anything..... all it requires is......... being true to oneself.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #237 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Sure, they could have been flown by a human. Radio control is a lot surer, it doesn't get cold feet and abort at the last moment. Those buildings fell instantly, like they'd been hit with a giant fly swatter. If you blow the feet out from under them with a suitcase nuke, you've got a good start. If you don't like my theory, as usual, let's hear yours. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted June 29, 2009 #238 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Those buildings fell instantly, like they'd been hit with a giant fly swatter. Actually, Kenny, they didn't. They remained standing for quite some time after being hit by the aircraft. As to your "suitcase nuke", why is there NO reports of ANY radiation or radiactive fallout at Ground Zero? If you're going to attempt to discuss this, you may want to at least familairize yourself with the the facts of the issue that ALL sides agree on. Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 29, 2009 #239 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Radio control is a lot surer? Considering that the kind of remote control technology purported has never been seen in public*, and never, so far as anyone knows (since all airframes are accounted for, so it doesn't seem likely that they might have tested it out in secret first) actually been tried out on a 757 or 767, then I think I'd say that the potential for something going wrong the very first time it was tried in practice, and in the most public way possible, was at least just as great. And that's before we get to the 'suitcase nuke' .... *No, UAVs don't count. There's rather a difference between a Predator and a 757. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK0001 Posted June 29, 2009 #240 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Why do you continue to give this guy (Kenny/SSSoul) the time of day? He clearly has no interest in listening to any of you. Move on. 16 pages is a bit much to be arguing with someone who obviously has no interest in rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #241 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Cz, I can't rely on official reports. If there are any, they'll be contaminated by the same bunch that pulled off this caper. 747400, Are you serious? They were using radio controlled aircraft back during WW2. That's how Joe Kennedy's son got killed. Since then, on TV, it showed a 'smart bomb' being guided thru a window during Desert Storm. I would guess what could be done using radio control would only be limited by the skill of the operator and the range. Why not use a mini-nuke? They've got them laying around, get some use out of them. It would be ideal for the towers and several other little jobs I can think of. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunk Posted June 29, 2009 #242 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Why not use a mini-nuke? They've got them laying around, get some use out of them. It would be ideal for the towers and several other little jobs I can think of. KennyB Because even the smallest nuke would have been amazingly obvious when it went off. In your theory, where would the nuke be located in the building? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protostar Posted June 29, 2009 #243 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Why do you continue to give this guy (Kenny/SSSoul) the time of day? He clearly has no interest in listening to any of you. Move on. 16 pages is a bit much to be arguing with someone who obviously has no interest in rationality. Good call TK! There's no sensible discussion here and the thread has gone off topic as well. Point of interest....for me anyway.......suitcase nukes, thermite, remote control and holographically disguised cruise missiles ( with boot/trunk to carry fake debris~ my idea ~)........I'm very surprised that he and the rest don't really think that an aircraft can literally liquify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK0001 Posted June 29, 2009 #244 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Good call TK! There's no sensible discussion here and the thread has gone off topic as well. Point of interest....for me anyway.......suitcase nukes, thermite, remote control and holographically disguised cruise missiles ( with boot/trunk to carry fake debris~ my idea ~)........I'm very surprised that he and the rest don't really think that an aircraft can literally liquify. That's the name of their game. They play by different rules and are skilled at continually moving goalposts in an effort to sustain the "conversation" as long as possible. Hence we started with the ridiculous notion of a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon and now we are trying to wrap our minds around the completely inane theory of a mini-nuke at Ground Zero. We try to counter with common sense and logic, but that is like mixing oil with water. These people do not subscribe to anyone's logic other than their own. To them, despite their claims, it is not about truth, it is about attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted June 29, 2009 #245 Share Posted June 29, 2009 747400, Are you serious? I do like the irony there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #246 Share Posted June 29, 2009 phunk, In the basement would be the logical place to put one. What's the yield of a baby nuke? I would guess no more than a few kilotons. I bet they have some that put out more heat than blast. Anyway, if it was in the sub-basement, it would be pretty far underground and might not have any blast at the surface. Most of the force would be confined to the lower floors, some might go up thru the elevator shafts. Like the man said, I'm just speculating, like everybody else. There was also a lot of 'cutter charges' used on those main support beams and other beams thru-out the buildings. Whatever was used, it was a lot hotter than burning jet fuel and office furniture. There were several reports of pools of melted steel in the rubble pile. I saw a picture of a stream of melted steel shooting out of a window like it was water. There was unburned thermite and small particles of iron in the smoke cloud. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK0001 Posted June 29, 2009 #247 Share Posted June 29, 2009 I'm just speculating Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #248 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Sorry I got the thread off topic. I was asked what my opinion was on the destruction of the Twin Towers and that's what I gave. Regardless of what you may think, I'm not a member of any 'truther' group and never heard of them until this thread. From what I gather, tho, they have some people with educations that match yours. If they happen to agree with what I said, I'm glad to hear it. Maybe I ought to check into them a little deeper. If you guys are against them and against me, maybe we are kindred souls. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phunk Posted June 29, 2009 #249 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) Are you aware that the survivors of the north tower collapse were in a stairwell in the core just above ground level? That puts them at most 100 feet from your mini nuke, yet none of them were killed, burned, poisoned by radiation, or anything else that could be expected even if they were a much farther away from a nuke. In fact they were being blown DOWN the stairs by the wind from the collapse above them, nothing came from below. So no nuke in the basement. Edited June 29, 2009 by phunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyB Posted June 29, 2009 #250 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Sheesh, phunk, I just mentioned the nuke as a possibility just like I did the hologram. You guys really have to hunt to find something to jump on me and insult me about. Quit making a federal case out of every little word. Obviously, you didn't have the kind of upbringing that I did. Sure, I've been speculating. What else is there? There is no evidence. What you guys call evidence may be an outright lie or part of the cover-up. Any thing you come up with is also speculating, as far as I'm concerned. Now, as far as the theory about an aircraft liquefing. It might be something to it but I don't believe it could occur at the slow-poke speed of 500mph. I notice thru-out all these posts, nobody has ever told me the theory behind this liquefying. All you say is I won't believe it, anyway. Is it so far out that you don't believe it yourselves? Has it been tested? Do you have any proof or is it all in your mind? PS, I think 555Soul is OK. KennyB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now