Austin, TX False Flag NRO "Plane into Building" drill comes to life

[Letsbereal]

still busy ploughing to the post but some loose ends struck me. Undoubtedly there are more but:

Why first burn down your own house while you have a child and wife?

Know a bit about real suicide actions but normally they don't imply to hurt their loved ones. Why leave them whiteout a place to live?

But than -"He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel."

How did they end up in the Hotel before or after the burning that night? If before - were they instructed by someone to go into an Hotel that night? strange.


So he allegedly burned down the house that night were did he stay that night?

The plane was flown into the building round 10.00 O'clock the next morning.

If this was an emotional action he sure stayed cool that night to wait for the next morning to get to the plane. Did he go to the hangar and waited there that night?

Still many questions to his wife certainly.

[James Redford]

The fact that the guy pointed out that he didn't like capitalists and communists and there is a "Don't Tread on Me" Flag on his Face Book Page is just creepy!

How could a guy hate both sides when an "Independent" likes alittle bit of both sides?

Are you referring to the below story? Because that's not Joseph Andrew Stack's Facebook page. That's just some Facebook page someone else put up after the news of the airplane crash came out. I don't even know that Stack had a Facebook page.

"Who Is Emilie Walters and Why is She Tyring to Revinvent Joseph Andrew Stack on Facebook?," Bungalow Bill, February 18, 2010 http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-is-emilie-walters-and-why-is-she.html , http://www.infowars.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-facebook-who-is-emily-walters/

[Joe(WI)]

I'm heading out. Post if you want any maps/graphics made to order tomorrow after 5 CST. 'Til then, take care people.

If I mucked up any of those maps, lemme know too, been a long, freaky day.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

I'm heading out. Post if you want any maps/graphics made to order tomorrow after 5 CST. 'Til then, take care people.

If I mucked up any of those maps, lemme know too, been a long, freaky day.

Nice a nice night.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Are you referring to the below story? Because that's not Joseph Andrew Stack's Facebook page. That's just some Facebook page someone else put up after the news of the airplane crash came out. I don't even know that Stack had a Facebook page.

"Who Is Emilie Walters and Why is She Tyring to Revinvent Joseph Andrew Stack on Facebook?," Bungalow Bill, February 18, 2010 http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-is-emilie-walters-and-why-is-she.html , http://www.infowars.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-facebook-who-is-emily-walters/

Yes.

It doesn't make sense.

[Truthwillsetyoufree]

this 'eyewitness' doesn't seem real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gItV-ENkxPY&feature=player_embedded
her whole 'we thought he was joking around' reminds me of GW Bush's "that must have been a terrible pilot" reference to the first plane hitting the WTC, and the reporter asks her, is there anything else you'd like to add? When do reporters ask that???

[James Redford]

The fact that the guy pointed out that he didn't like capitalists and communists and there is a "Don't Tread on Me" Flag on his Face Book Page is just creepy!

How could a guy hate both sides when an "Independent" likes alittle bit of both sides?

Are you referring to the below story? Because that's not Joseph Andrew Stack's Facebook page. That's just some Facebook page someone else put up after the news of the airplane crash came out. I don't even know that Stack had a Facebook page.

"Who Is Emilie Walters and Why is She Tyring to Revinvent Joseph Andrew Stack on Facebook?," Bungalow Bill, February 18, 2010 http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-is-emilie-walters-and-why-is-she.html , http://www.infowars.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-facebook-who-is-emily-walters/

Yes.

It doesn't make sense at all to make a fake one.

It's not a fake Joseph Andrew Stack Facebook page. It's a page put up by someone named Emily who was putatively supporting Stack's alleged attack. Again, I'm not aware that Stack even had a Facebook page.

Although even if it were an attempt at faking a Facebook page by Joseph Andrew Stack, your statement that "It doesn't make sense at all to make a fake one" is a non sequitur. One could think of all kinds of reasons to fake such a thing.

[Letsbereal]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/18/texas.plane.crash/index.html
 
(CNN) -- The latest news as it comes in to CNN from the scene of the crash of a small plane in Austin, Texas. (All times are ET, one hour ahead of local Austin time.)

12:38 p.m. The pilot of the plane had set his house on fire beforehand, stole the plane and crashed it intentionally, a federal official told CNN.


11:36 a.m.: A small airplane crashed into a building in Austin, Texas, Thursday morning, according to Lynn Lundsford of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The guy did not steal the plane, he owned it.  He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel.

Evidently a radio station in Texas had an interview with the aunt of the child and she spent the night with the mother and child in the motel.  She said his car was at the hanger and that the plane was not there. She also stated that the description of the plane matched the description of his plane.

still busy ploughing to the post but some loose ends struck me. Undoubtedly there are more but:

Why first burn down your own house while you have a child and wife?

Know a bit about real suicide actions but normally they don't imply to hurt their loved ones. Why leave them whiteout a place to live?

But than -"He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel."

How did they end up in the Hotel before or after the burning that night? If before - were they instructed by someone to go into an Hotel that night? strange.


So he allegedly burned down the house that night were did he stay that night? But wait O minute: "She said his car was at the hanger and that the plane was not there." - what time was that?

The plane was flown into the building round 10.00 O'clock the next morning.

If this was an emotional action he sure stayed cool that night to wait for the next morning to get to the plane. Did he go to the hangar and waited there that night?

Still many questions to his wife certainly.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Two weeks before 9/11 the news was "setting the stage" for a terrorist attack. The news did mention Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.

Two weeks before this attack in Austin all you heard on news is about how "bad the Tea-Party Movement" is.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Are you referring to the below story? Because that's not Joseph Andrew Stack's Facebook page. That's just some Facebook page someone else put up after the news of the airplane crash came out. I don't even know that Stack had a Facebook page.

"Who Is Emilie Walters and Why is She Tyring to Revinvent Joseph Andrew Stack on Facebook?," Bungalow Bill, February 18, 2010 http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-is-emilie-walters-and-why-is-she.html , http://www.infowars.com/joseph-andrew-stacks-facebook-who-is-emily-walters/

Yes.

It doesn't make sense at all to make a fake one.


It's not a fake Joseph Andrew Stack Facebook page. It's a page put up by someone named Emily who was putatively supporting Stack's alleged attack. Again, I'm not aware that Stack even had a Facebook page.

Although even if it were an attempt at faking a Facebook page by Joseph Andrew Stack, your statement that "It doesn't make sense at all to make a fake one" is a non sequitur. One could think of all kinds of reasons to fake such a thing.

I agree with you. I won't argue about any reasons why they wouldn't want fake a Face Book Page.

[James Redford]

I agree with you. I won't argue about any reasons why they wouldn't want fake a Face Book Page.

I'm glad you understand now that that wasn't Joseph Andrew Stack's Facebook page. I haven't seen information that he even had a Facebook page.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in your last sentence.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

You said, even if it was a fake Face Book Page.

There would be alot of benefits to having a fake Face Book Page.

I agree with you on that.

[Tactics]

still busy ploughing to the post but some loose ends struck me. Undoubtedly there are more but:

Why first burn down your own house while you have a child and wife?

Know a bit about real suicide actions but normally they don't imply to hurt their loved ones. Why leave them whiteout a place to live?

But than -"He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel."

How did they end up in the Hotel before or after the burning that night? If before - were they instructed by someone to go into an Hotel that night? strange.


So he allegedly burned down the house that night were did he stay that night?

The plane was flown into the building round 10.00 O'clock the next morning.

If this was an emotional action he sure stayed cool that night to wait for the next morning to get to the plane. Did he go to the hangar and waited there that night?

Still many questions to his wife certainly.

good points

[Letsbereal]

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100218-austin-plane-crash-house-fire-connected


Updated: Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 12:08 PM CST
Published : Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 11:52 AM CST

DOUG DELONY

HOUSTON - In an interview with KLBJ radio, a woman says she believes the plane that crashed into an Austin office building on Thursday is that of an in-law who burned his house down the night before.

"My little niece is his step daughter," said the woman in an interview with KLBJ radio. "He burned their house down last night. My sister had gone over there last night to get them out of the house. They spent the night in a motel."

The woman, whose name was not immediately clear, went on to say the man's plane is now missing. She says the incident started as a domestic dispute.

"They checked before ten o'clock. His plane is gone. His car is at the hangar in Round Rock."

The woman says the description of the plane that crashed in Austin matches the description of the woman's family member.

Round Rock is located about 25 miles north of the crash site.

Federal officials tell FOX in Austin they are looking into the possibility the crash may not be an accident, however, Homeland Security has ruled out any possibility of terrorism.

Normaly Homeland Security loves to talk about terrorism even if it isn't prudent - not now.

Why the idea to check for the plane in the morning after staying in the hotel that night? Before ten O'clock the plane was gone. Does it fit the time table?


"My sister had gone over there last night to get them out of the house." How did she know? And why she had to get them out of the house. Couldn't they get out of the house themselves? strange.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

still busy ploughing to the post but some loose ends struck me. Undoubtedly there are more but:

Why first burn down your own house while you have a child and wife?

Know a bit about real suicide actions but normally they don't imply to hurt their loved ones. Why leave them whiteout a place to live?

But than -"He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel."

How did they end up in the Hotel before or after the burning that night? If before - were they instructed by someone to go into an Hotel that night? strange.


So he allegedly burned down the house that night were did he stay that night?

The plane was flown into the building round 10.00 O'clock the next morning.

If this was an emotional action he sure stayed cool that night to wait for the next morning to get to the plane. Did he go to the hangar and waited there that night?

Still many questions to his wife certainly.

Yeah, good questions.

What did he say to his wife and kid when they went to the hotel to stay over the night?

[James Redford]

You said, even if it was a fake Face Book Page.

There would be alot of benefits to having a fake Face Book Page.

I agree with you on that.

Cool. I thought you might have been disagreeing with that, but didn't want to argue about it.

[Col3_11n12]

An eyewitness who was in the building just said he felt two explosions.  FYI.

[James Redford]

An eyewitness who was in the building just said he felt two explosions.  FYI.

Could you cite for us where this was reported?

[Guns Equal Freedom]

It is so weird seeing Glenn Beck on tv saying the "Tea-Party Movement could pose a danger", when a year ago he was defending the Libertarians, saying, "the police will "profile" the "Don't Tread on Me" Flags on the back of your car"

 .

[africknamerican]

There was no plane, it was a hologram.

[Letsbereal]

All good points. Have a look at this:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/18/texas.plane.crash/index.html

(CNN) -- The latest news as it comes in to CNN from the scene of the crash of a small plane in Austin, Texas. (All times are ET, one hour ahead of local Austin time.)

12:38 p.m. The pilot of the plane had set his house on fire beforehand, stole the plane and crashed it intentionally, a federal official told CNN.

11:36 a.m.: A small airplane crashed into a building in Austin, Texas, Thursday morning, according to Lynn Lundsford of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The guy did not steal the plane, he owned it.  He burned the house down last night and the child and mother spent the night in the hotel.

Evidently a radio station in Texas had an interview with the aunt of the child and she spent the night with the mother and child in the motel.  She said his car was at the hanger and that the plane was not there. She also stated that the description of the plane matched the description of his plane.

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100218-austin-plane-crash-house-fire-connected


Updated: Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 12:08 PM CST
Published : Thursday, 18 Feb 2010, 11:52 AM CST

DOUG DELONY

HOUSTON - In an interview with KLBJ radio, a woman says she believes the plane that crashed into an Austin office building on Thursday is that of an in-law who burned his house down the night before.

"My little niece is his step daughter," said the woman in an interview with KLBJ radio. "He burned their house down last night. My sister had gone over there last night to get them out of the house. They spent the night in a motel."

The woman, whose name was not immediately clear, went on to say the man's plane is now missing. She says the incident started as a domestic dispute.

"They checked before ten o'clock. His plane is gone. His car is at the hangar in Round Rock."

The woman says the description of the plane that crashed in Austin matches the description of the woman's family member.

Round Rock is located about 25 miles north of the crash site.

Federal officials tell FOX in Austin they are looking into the possibility the crash may not be an accident, however, Homeland Security has ruled out any possibility of terrorism.

So lets say she checked 9:45 which is before 10:00 O' clock - Plan crashes at 11:36 --> He flew around for 1 hour and 51 minutes - almost 2 hours which doesn't make sense.

Say he just left at 10:00 he still would be 1 hour and 36 minutes in the air at the minimum.

[TheCaliKid]

^^^^ Are you f**king kidding me!?!?

Even a two-year-old can see that this is not from a plane with a 90-gallon gas tank........there must have been bombies on board.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

I think the airplanes took down the towers on 9/11, but I don't think a 90 gallon small airplane was the only thing that caused damage to that building in Austin.

[Monkeypox]

I think the airplanes took down the towers on 9/11, but I don't think a 90 gallon small airplane was the only thing that caused damage to that building in Austin.

 

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Yeah, I always thought that about the towers on 9/11, and the Pentagon on 9/11 was an airplane that went though the building, but something else might have blown out the hole on the inside, and I always thought the airplane over Pennsylvania on 9/11 was shot down.

[James Redford]

I think the airplanes took down the towers on 9/11, but I don't think a 90 gallon small airplane was the only thing that caused damage to that building in Austin.

Scientists Confirm Large Quantities of Thermite in World Trade Center Dust

The below paper, published in a peer-reviewed chemical physics journal and authored by nine scientists working in laboratories at multiple universities using state-of-the-art equipment, confirms the presence of large quantities of metal microspheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still active) super-thermite (also called nanothermite, which is thermite which has been made even more reactive by decreasing the thermitic particle size down to the nanometer range), in different dust samples from the collapsed World Trade Center (W.T.C.) towers collected from multiple people at different sites even before cleanup operations began. The physical and chemical properties of these microspheres and flakes were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (S.E.M.), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X.E.D.S.), and differential scanning calorimetry (D.S.C.), among other methods.

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 2009), pp. 7-31. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
http://visibility911.com/downloads/media/thermite-fingerprint.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov (A video cited in the article.)

For more information on the background on this paper, including the extensive research that went into it and the rigorous peer-review process that it underwent, I highly recommend everyone here listen to the below interview of Dr. Steven E. Jones, one of the paper's authors. Also available below is an interview of Kevin R. Ryan, another author of the paper.

"Special Report: Thermite Fingerprint," Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11, April 3, 2009. http://visibility911.com/reports-thermite01.php
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3
http://cdn4.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3
http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_kevinryan0309.mp3

Below are two other peer-reviewed papers which also pertain to the presence of large quantities of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. towers:

Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley and Steven E. Jones, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials," The Environmentalist, Vol. 29, No. 1 (March 2009), pp. 56-63. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction," Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 2 (2008), pp. 35-40. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874149500802010035
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2174/1874149500802010035

In addition to the presence of large amounts of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. buildings, another truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the W.T.C. towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2) immediately before its collapse.

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet, Google Video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ISHXV3I9 , http://www.zshare.net/video/71743225e27bd335/ , http://depositfiles.com/files/swahgqc1t , http://rapidshare.com/files/341682789/supportthetruth.com-vids-thermite.wmv.html , http://www.badongo.com/vid/1447889 ( http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv )

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet, Google Video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see the below paper by Steven E. Jones (Ph.D.; physicist and archaeometrist; former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University):

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

See also:

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://911review.com/articles/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://stj911.org/jones/docs/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lifferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the W.T.C. towers (see "Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination" in World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 403, May 2002 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

And in the below paper it is conclusively proved via chemical analysis using scanning electron microscopy (S.E.M.), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-E.D.S.), and wavelength dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (W.D.S.), that large quantities of thermite analogs (such as thermate) were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers:

"Revisiting 9/11/2001--Applying the Scientific Method," Dr. Steven E. Jones, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 11 (May 2007). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

See also the below on additional physical remains of thermite (in the form of unreacted flakes of thermite) from the demolished World Trade Center, collected even before clean-up operations began:

"Announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust," ProfJones (Steven E. Jones), 911Blogger.com, December 22, 2007. http://911blogger.com/node/13090

"Dr. Steven E. Jones Boston 911 Conference 12-15-07 Red chips Thermite.mov," Google Video, December 21, 2007. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4186920967571123147

Further, the below paper documents the connections between the people at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responsible for investigating the collapse of the W.T.C. buildings and the rarefied military-intensive field of super-thermites. The glaring implication being that those responsible for executing the technical aspects of the controlled demolition of the W.T.C. (on behalf of those who control the U.S. government) are the same people in charge of investigating the cause of the collapses. Thereby killing two birds with one stone: using the same technical-echelon team which collapsed the towers to subsequently collapse any authentic investigation into what caused the collapse of the towers--as these people aren't going to tell on themselves. (To date NIST has refused to examine the remains of the W.T.C. for evidence of explosives or thermite, despite repeated requests for such an examination and despite such analysis being specified in NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations," National Fire Protection Association.)

"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites," Kevin R. Ryan, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 22 (July 2, 2008). http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Yeah, I understand the "Thermite Theory", but jet fuel is so damn explosive.

I am giving the jet fuel the benefit of the doubt.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Seeing those 9/11 clips still make me depressed to this day.

[Letsbereal]

Yeah, I understand the "Thermite Theory", but jet fuel is so damn explosive.

I am giving the jet fuel the benefit of the doubt.

You've got no idea at all what you are talking about, don't you. Better say nothing than cause now you are discrediting yourself.

The heat of combustion of kerosene is similar to that of diesel. And we all know that diesel is not that explosive at all.

First check your facts before throwing out BS.

[TheCaliKid]

Yeah, I understand the "Thermite Theory", but jet fuel is so damn explosive.

I am giving the jet fuel the benefit of the doubt.

Have you done any research yet?

[Guns Equal Freedom]

You've got no idea at all what you are talking about, don't you. Better say nothing than cause now you are discrediting yourself.

The heat of combustion of kerosene is similar to that of diesel. And we all know that diesel is not that explosive at all.

First check your facts before throwing out BS.

"Explosive" meaning an airplane flying at full speed into a building, and jet fuel can burn at 1,000+ degrees so it can wear out the metal. Heat is metal's weakness.

But, I don't think the conspiracy theory are the airplanes themselves. I think the conspiracy theory are the terrorist hijackers themselves. I think there is a strong possibility that some of them were "Double-Agents" working with Al-Qaeda like the one who killed 8 CIA Agents in Afghanistan.

We know that they were doing "War Games" on 9/11 that were the type of things that happened on 9/11.

[Letsbereal]

Seeing those 9/11 clips still make me depressed to this day.

Beginning to sound like cointelpro now cause it makes people angry not depressed - 911 the inside job.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Beginning to sound like cointelpro now cause it makes people angry not depressed - 911 the inside job.

I actually saw the smoke on 9/11 driving home from college in NYC.

It makes me depressed still.

3,000+ people died.

[Letsbereal]

"Explosive" meaning an airplane flying at full speed into a building, and jet fuel can burn at 1,000+ degrees so it can wear out the metal. Heat is metal's weakness.

But, I don't think the conspiracy theory are the airplanes themselves. I think the conspiracy theory are the terrorist hijackers themselves. I think there is a strong possibility that some of them "Double-Agents" working with Al-Qauda.

No it can't. Like said you've got now knowledge at all and putting out ol head talking points here - I am on to you buddy.

I am not a fluor head like you.

You should be ashamed of yourself. People like you bring down this country down. Your a disgrace for the nation.

"Double-Agents"  ROFL! AL CIAda yeah that's right fluor talking head.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

Like Alex Jones has said himself. There are real Islamic Terrorists, but to what degree?

What if the government exploited the fact that they wanted to do something in America, just like the "Underwear Bomber"?

Patrick F. Kennedy admitted he was told to let the "Underwear Bomber" on the airplane.

That is a major win for "conspiracy theorists".

[James Redford]

Yeah, I understand the "Thermite Theory", but jet fuel is so damn explosive.

I am giving the jet fuel the benefit of the doubt.

It's not a "theory": large quantities of metal microspheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still active) nanothermite are in all the analyzed dust samples of the collapsed World Trade Center (W.T.C.) buildings. It's an empirical fact that the W.T.C. was demolished with large quantities of thermite.

Nor is jet fuel explosive. It's less volatile than gasoline. It's neither a deflagration explosive (a low explosive) or a detonation explosive (a high explosive). When mixed with open air and ignited, jet fuel will produce a weak fireball, but with no ability to cause any damage to structural steel.

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

So in addition to the presence of large amounts of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. buildings, the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2) immediately before its collapse are another truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the W.T.C. towers were brought down by controlled demolition are.

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

The great thing about these videos is that every person can independently empirically confirm for themselves with apodictic certainty that incendiaries with the power of thermite were used to demolish the W.T.C. towers.

[Guns Equal Freedom]

I hate "arguing" over "conspiracy theories".

I think we all come here to try and find a conclusion to something that keeps popping up in our heads over and over.

The information about something the better.

[James Redford]

"Explosive" meaning an airplane flying at full speed into a building, and jet fuel can burn at 1,000+ degrees so it can wear out the metal. Heat is metal's weakness.

But, I don't think the conspiracy theory are the airplanes themselves. I think the conspiracy theory are the terrorist hijackers themselves. I think there is a strong possibility that some of them were "Double-Agents" working with Al-Qaeda like the one who killed 8 CIA Agents in Afghanistan.

We know that they were doing "War Games" on 9/11 that were the type of things that happened on 9/11.

Jet fuel cannot burn at that temperature in open air. When mixed with compressed air in the right ratio in a jet engine turbine it can burn at that temperature. Jet fuel can only burn in open air at 260-315 °C.

[James Redford]

I hate arguing over "conspiracy theories".

I think we all come here to try and find a conclusion to something that keeps popping up in your head over and over.

The information about something the better.

Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual, and provably false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.

Al-Qaeda was founded by the U.S. government and has always been a wholly-owned creature of those who control the U.S. government. Everything al-Qaeda does is designed to empower them.

Nor is what I have presented here a "theory": large quantities of metal microspheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still active) nanothermite are in all the analyzed dust samples of the collapsed World Trade Center (W.T.C.) buildings. It's an empirical fact that the W.T.C. was demolished with large quantities of thermite.

Nor is jet fuel explosive. It's less volatile than gasoline. It's neither a deflagration explosive (a low explosive) or a detonation explosive (a high explosive). When mixed with open air and ignited, jet fuel will produce a weak fireball, but with no ability to cause any damage to structural steel.

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C (as the temperature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color), yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

So in addition to the presence of large amounts of thermite in the dust of the collapsed W.T.C. buildings, the videos of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2) immediately before its collapse are another truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the W.T.C. towers were brought down by controlled demolition are.

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what those videos record.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

The great thing about these videos is that every person can independently empirically confirm for themselves with apodictic certainty that incendiaries with the power of thermite were used to demolish the W.T.C. towers.

[TheCaliKid]

Jet fuel cannot burn at that temperature in open air. When mixed with compressed air in the right ratio in a jet engine turbine it can burn at that temperature. Jet fuel can only burn in open air at 260-315 °C.

500-600 °F


Thank you very much.