ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 1st September 2014, 01:44 PM   #4721
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Within 10 minutes he was collecting and saving dust? Why would anyone do such a thing? Wouldn't saving your ass be a better priority.

Did anyone elses BS meter just explode?
He (Delessio) does claim he was fleeing the area at the time, and at that point the evacuation of lower Manhattan had just been ordered.

Here's the problem. Had he claimed he was picking up dust deposited from the collapse of WTC 2 an hour or so previously, he'd have been credible. Instead he claimed he was engulfed in the dust cloud of WTC 1, which he said had just collapsed, and it was this dust he was collecting.

If you understand much about the aerosolization of particulates and their deposition rates and distances, you realize the dust he claims he was collecting cannot have settled at that distance at that time. Either his timeline is wrong, or his "dust" is a convenience sample of whatever had been on the pedestrian walkway.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 01:47 PM   #4722
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...if you ever watch thermite reactions it becomes readily apparent that the white cloud formed (aluminum oxide) rapidly disperses.
How many large-scale thermite reactions have you personally witnessed? If you have read any of my posts in the other thread, you should realize I'm going to keep asking you this until you answer it, or until it becomes conspicuously obvious that you are bluffing.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 01:54 PM   #4723
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
He (Delessio) does claim he was fleeing the area at the time, and at that point the evacuation of lower Manhattan had just been ordered.

Here's the problem. Had he claimed he was picking up dust deposited from the collapse of WTC 2 an hour or so previously, he'd have been credible. Instead he claimed he was engulfed in the dust cloud of WTC 1, which he said had just collapsed, and it was this dust he was collecting.

If you understand much about the aerosolization of particulates and their deposition rates and distances, you realize the dust he claims he was collecting cannot have settled at that distance at that time. Either his timeline is wrong, or his "dust" is a convenience sample of whatever had been on the pedestrian walkway.
I have no problem with his sample coming from the collapses, it matches the other samples.

The fact they specify it as "fresh" as to avoid any question of contamination sets off my BS meter. The interview where he specifies when it was collected was 6 years after the event at a "truther" event in Boston.

Doesn't really matter in the whole scope of things because, he collected the same paint residue everyone else did.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 01:59 PM   #4724
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I have no problem with his sample coming from the collapses, it matches the other samples.
He probably collected WTC 2 collapse material, which did have time to settle that far away from the collapse site.

Quote:
The fact they specify it as "fresh" as to avoid any question of contamination sets off my BS meter.
Exactly. It clearly cannot have been, given the non-credible details in Delessio's testimony. It's likely he's adding detail in order to emphasize the alleged freshness of the sample, not realizing that his embellishments reduce his credibility.

Quote:
Doesn't really matter in the whole scope of things because, he collected the same paint residue everyone else did.
Correct. As we've seen elsewhere, most Truther claims seem to have multiple things wrong with them. Some critics therefore prefer to take them to task for all of them, and some avoid the kettle-claim argument by conceding on one premise and attacking the most critical of the failed claims.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 02:03 PM   #4725
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Exactly. It clearly cannot have been, given the non-credible details in Delessio's testimony. It's likely he's adding detail in order to emphasize the alleged freshness of the sample, not realizing that his embellishments reduce his credibility.
How did this blatant inaccuracy in sample ever get past peer-review.

(MM's post is a direct quote from the paper)



__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Last edited by DGM; 1st September 2014 at 02:07 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 02:19 PM   #4726
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How did this blatant inaccuracy in sample ever get past peer-review.
Gee, I wonder...
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 06:19 PM   #4727
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Why is MM writing in blue these days?
He got dem ol' Kozmic Blues again?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2014, 06:22 PM   #4728
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Within 10 minutes he was collecting and saving dust? Why would anyone do such a thing? Wouldn't saving your ass be a better priority.
Arguably, it could be in the same vein as people who collected shards of Hindenburg.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2014, 08:41 AM   #4729
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Arguably, it could be in the same vein as people who collected shards of Hindenburg.
I think that would have been an easier proposition since the airship only burned for about 90 seconds, after which there were only isolated and relatively stable diesel fires. But the sentiment is apt enough: people fleeing from danger still snap cell phone pictures and grab souvenirs.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2014, 11:45 AM   #4730
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Why is MM writing in blue these days?
Mold is setting in on failed 911 truth claims, repeated past their due date.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2014, 01:11 PM   #4731
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 9,006
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Mold is setting in on failed 911 truth claims, repeated past their due date.


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993)
"Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2014, 03:06 PM   #4732
remo
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 89
Campfire [sic] oliloquy

Mr Barnett “Thinking what something might be caused by" and "thought it might be caused by battery acid, acid rain or burning gypsum wallboard" WHILE REPORTING :”The significance of the work on a [steel] sample from Building 7, and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A one inch[steel]column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges-which are curled like a paper scroll-have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes-some larger than a silver dollar-let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending -but not holes”. That "A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel....The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C(1800F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel” - reportedly requiring a ‘very high concentration of sulfur, around 50(mol.%)’ - [Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”NYTimes], and cited by Mr Barnett as “A very unusual event,” about which “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified”,
MAY well have been said by the same man, but I would suggest at different times in his career.
As with the ‘shocked fire-wise professors’.

Ritchie LEE said of the 200X normal amounts of Fe spheres he identified in the DUST; “The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporised. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminium and silicon and alumino-silitcate spheres were also observed in the dust. The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. Theses spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces.”

Yet Molybdenum spheres and other ‘high temperature event’ evidence not ‘obtainable by combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels’ was found in the dust of WTC911(USGS). Lead and steel were vaporised. Whole buildings fell AT free fall ! Pools of molten steel ‘running like lava in a volcano’, ‘like in a foundry’, pouring out the corner of the South Tower a molten steel river, so, presenting the idea of diffuse ‘hurricane force furnace winds’ burning ‘rust’ out of elevator shafts melting tons of steel in mid-air as fine molten mist during a violent eruptive building disintegrating at the rate of 11 stories per second., 110 stories in 10 seconds, is the real mockery here.

Sunder stated ”yeah. the issue of thermate in NIST judgement didn’t even reach level of importance to do detailed study for reasons we could rule it out fairly easily for several reasons. one. in order for a thermate reaction to to take place there has to be materials and of course building materials have all of the things required for thermite or thermate and we looked at the amount of thermate to bring the building down you would have had to place about a 100lbs of thermate right in the proximity of the column and it would have to adhere to the column because thats what thermite actually does, is melt the steel so somebody has to keep pushing it so that thermite continues to be sticking to this vertical column so that until it collapses in order to get that amount of materials into the building and actually place it is unlikely to have actually happened.”
All he needed do, was consult NIST partner SAIC contracting the largest ’non-governmental’ contingent to the WTC investigation utilising their extensive links to nano-thermite research and DOD to understand the lack of intelligence revealed by his quote.

Like the reduction of the question to campfire theatrics, all these men have made childish entertainment of a clear scientific invention, over the presented forensics of demolition.
remo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2014, 03:11 PM   #4733
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by remo View Post
Like the reduction of the question to campfire theatrics, all these men have made childish entertainment of a clear scientific invention, over the presented forensics of demolition.
The fact you accept fantasy is not evidence of demolition.

When do you think they're get some independent verification? Funny how they're the only ones with this "forensic evidence" and they won't share.

Better not question the motives of your handlers.

__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

Last edited by DGM; 3rd September 2014 at 03:13 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2014, 05:14 PM   #4734
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by remo View Post
... Yet Molybdenum spheres and other ‘high temperature event’. ...
lol, 911 truth have no idea why molybdenum was found. Did 911 truth try to research what molybdenum is found in? No, 911 truth makes up lies and the insane claim of thermite, made up by Jones 4 years after 911; mocking the murder of thousands by making up fantasy.

13 years of failure, is 911 truth

Molybdenum melts at 4750 F
Steel melts at 2600 - 2800 F
Thermite reaches 4532 F (oops)

The fake paper has silicon in the thermite, it means thermite has a lower max temperature.

OOPS, thermite can't melt the molybdenum... what do you do now.
Jones lied about thermite, he made it up;
13 years of failure.
911 truth fails to do research, fooling gullible people on 911 issues.

Why has 911 truth failed for 13 years? Was the plot too complex for 911 truth followers.
911 plot...
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

19 terrorists used murder and then the easiest flying maneuver in the books, crashing.
911 truth makes up silly lies based on nonsense which fool a few gullible followers.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2014, 01:10 PM   #4735
1stClassAlan
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 78
There's not much that annoys me more about Conspiracists than their constant harping on about "Thermite" and the new super improved version - "nano thermite!" Whatever that may be. Considering that a thermitic reaction in a chemical mixture takes place down at the chemical compound level in which electrons will be jumping about - you can forget "nano" and start thinking about pico, pico, pico - but this will be lost on such folk!

Their claim that "Thermite" ( as if you can walk into your local store and buy it over the counter!) is widely used and accepted for controlled demolition is utterly wrong and ridiculous. The only PRACTICAL use for it I know of, is in-situ welding of railway rails - hence it is CONSTRUCTIVE not destructive - and even this needs the employment of a well fitted crusible mould - as otherwise the material simply runs away once liquid. Transferring this knowledge to their conjecture that vast quantities were somehow installed to burn through certain steel sections in The Towers - begs the question - how was the resulting reaction contained? If the stream of unidentified liquid material seen pouring from the corner of Tower two shortly before its demise was reaction products - why couldn't other better laid charges be seen burning through the box section exterior walls? I'd also ask for evidence of any burning through of ANY steel before the clear up when oxy-propane sets were in use! Thermitic mixtures are quite difficult to light - you need at least an oxy-propane torch to start it off and even this can be a bit stop start so the fires can't be relied on to do it - explain then how the firing mechanism - first survived detection, penetration by aircraft, lumps of disrupted building and then completely disappeared from Ground Zero.

This also goes for ALL explosive allegations - I'm not an explosives "expert" but I reckon I know more about them than most Conspiracists and a good few on here - all the CD sites I've worked on are littered with identifiable explosives debris - plastic closures, copper shreds, copper smears on cut steel, unburnt det cord etc., etc., there would have to be a cover up of gigantic proportions to carry it off.

BTW Beechy - the commonest use of molybdenum I know of is inside light bulbs - you might know but for those that don't - it's used for the electrical conductor that passes through the glass - the very high melting point means it also has a low heat/ expansion co-efficient so doesn't crack the bulb or tube.

Last edited by 1stClassAlan; 4th September 2014 at 01:18 PM.
1stClassAlan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2014, 01:27 PM   #4736
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 9,006
Originally Posted by 1stClassAlan View Post
There's not much that annoys me more about Conspiracists than their constant harping on about "Thermite" and the new super improved version - "nano thermite!" Whatever that may be. Considering that a thermitic reaction in a chemical mixture takes place down at the chemical compound level in which electrons will be jumping about - you can forget "nano" and start thinking about pico, pico, pico - but this will be lost on such folk!

Their claim that "Thermite" ( as if you can walk into your local store and buy it over the counter!) is widely used and accepted for controlled demolition is utterly wrong and ridiculous. The only PRACTICAL use for it I know of, is in-situ welding of railway rails - hence it is CONSTRUCTIVE not destructive - and even this needs the employment of a well fitted crusible mould - as otherwise the material simply runs away once liquid. Transferring this knowledge to their conjecture that vast quantities were somehow installed to burn through certain steel sections in The Towers - begs the question - how was the resulting reaction contained? If the stream of unidentified liquid material seen pouring from the corner of Tower two shortly before its demise was reaction products - why couldn't other better laid charges be seen burning through the box section exterior walls? I'd also ask for evidence of any burning through of ANY steel before the clear up when oxy-propane sets were in use! Thermitic mixtures are quite difficult to light - you need at least an oxy-propane torch to start it off and even this can be a bit stop start so the fires can't be relied on to do it - explain then how the firing mechanism - first survived detection, penetration by aircraft, lumps of disrupted building and then completely disappeared from Ground Zero.

This also goes for ALL explosive allegations - I'm not an explosives "expert" but I reckon I know more about them than most Conspiracists and a good few on here - all the CD sites I've worked on are littered with identifiable explosives debris - plastic closures, copper shreds, copper smears on cut steel, unburnt det cord etc., etc., there would have to be a cover up of gigantic proportions to carry it off.

BTW Beechy - the commonest use of molybdenum I know of is inside light bulbs - you might know but for those that don't - it's used for the electrical conductor that passes through the glass - the very high melting point means it also has a low heat/ expansion co-efficient so doesn't crack the bulb or tube.
I believe that if you look up the Chicago Skytower demolition, they had to use pretty massive containment vessels for the thermite. That's probably part of why no one I know of ever tried structural controlled demolition with thermite again. Or would seriously consider it.
__________________
"Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993)
"Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

Last edited by LSSBB; 4th September 2014 at 01:35 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2014, 07:45 PM   #4737
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I believe that if you look up the Chicago Skytower demolition, they had to use pretty massive containment vessels for the thermite. That's probably part of why no one I know of ever tried structural controlled demolition with thermite again. Or would seriously consider it.
Probably right. I know of another one though. It took quite a while.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2014, 09:02 PM   #4738
chrismohr
Graduate Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,825
Remo, while you quote Mr Barnett as calling the eutectic steel phenomenon “A very unusual event,” about which “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified,” I got a much broader context to what he said by actually talking with him. It's obvious that there is no clear explanation, which is why he gave me three very different possible explanations... and not only are none of those possibilities thermitic, but he completely rejects the idea that it could have been CD! Go ahead and hold on to your interpretation of what he said 12 years ago, but he never once accepted CD as a possible explanation, and you are blinding yourself to the context of what he said by rejecting everything he has said about it since... to me and to others.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2014, 09:07 PM   #4739
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 9,006
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Probably right. I know of another one though. It took quite a while.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Thanks, I see how truly bright the burning was, also.
__________________
"Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993)
"Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012)
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2014, 09:08 PM   #4740
remo
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 89
Blind leading the Blind

The only context anything involved in this can be taken in, is the forensics unearthed since 911.
The fire-wise professor(s) found a ‘very unusual event’ - sulfur - IN CONJUNCTION with another ‘very unusual event’ - the total destruction of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise AT FREE FALL; and two 110 storied towers at close to free fall- during the worst terrorist attack in modern History.
That they - after finding evidence of what would OCCAM indicate thermitic attack on building steel - identifying sulfur, reported by 'fire-wise investigators' as an element specific to lowering melting temperature of steel during intergranular attack - didn’t offer ‘Thermate attack’ as ONE of the working hypothesis for the steel destruction, extending that instead to three variations of 'acid attack', pushed credulity past credibility into a catagory peculiar to all official 911 science.
His statement ‘completely rejected the IDEA it could have been CD’ is not echoed in the App.C report, where Mr Barnett found another ‘possible’ credible enough to be stated, that, “ It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure”. This does not read like a ‘complete rejection of the idea of CD’ to me. In fact it offers it as a distinct possibility in the face of the three hypothesis presented being IRRELEVANT to any prior/collapse/weakening/acceleration practicalities.
Given the nature of the atrocity, there being no proper investigation of that ‘prior possibility’ (Sunder also: “the issue of thermate in NIST judgement didn’t even reach level of importance to do detailed study”) nor further investigation into the “ No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified,” adds to the agnotological 'context' surrounding all official presentations of WTC911, and defenders of them.
remo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2014, 11:39 PM   #4741
JayUtah
Philosopher
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,317
Originally Posted by remo View Post
The fire-wise professor(s) found a ‘very unusual event’ - sulfur
Not fire-wise and not unusual. The second rather follows from the first. If you don't know what you're talking about, you aren't an authority on what is unusual or not.

Quote:
...the total destruction of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise AT FREE FALL
Nope.

Quote:
...two 110 storied towers at close to free fall
Nope.

Quote:
...during the worst terrorist attack in modern History.
Yes, that should give you a good indication as to the true causes of the tragedies to which you allude.

Quote:
...of what would OCCAM indicate thermitic attack
Not even remotely parsimonious. This is why the controlled-demolition proponents have to resort to almost magical contingencies they say "must" have been employed. Appeals to magic are decidedly pruned by Occam's Razor.

Quote:
...didn’t offer ‘Thermate attack’ as ONE of the working hypothesis for the steel destruction
It was offered, and nearly summarily rejected for the complete lack of appropriate evidence. The rest of your post is just verbal salad.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2014, 08:28 AM   #4742
pgimeno
Graduate Poster
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted by remo View Post
The fire-wise professor(s) found a ‘very unusual event’ - sulfur - IN CONJUNCTION with another ‘very unusual event’ - the total destruction of an 81 columned 47 storied steel framed high rise
Yes, the first one happened in the aftermath of the second one.

So, an unusual event producing an unusual result?

Color me surprised.

Not.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2014, 09:23 AM   #4743
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by remo View Post
...
That they - after finding evidence of what would OCCAM indicate thermitic attack on building steel - identifying sulfur, reported by 'fire-wise investigators' as an element specific to lowering melting temperature of steel during intergranular attack - didn’t offer ‘Thermate attack’ as ONE of the working hypothesis for the steel destruction, extending that instead to three variations of 'acid attack', pushed credulity past credibility into a catagory peculiar to all official 911 science. ...
Oops, your fantasy of termite ends with steel studied. It appears you never took Chemical Engineering 101, to learn what a eutectic is. The paper clearly says temperatures up to 1000 C, which rules out thermite.
You also have no idea what intergranular means, as you lie and say this was thermite attack, when the paper says high temperature corrosion, and gives us the high temperature in the text instead of the BS you post. 800 -1000 C means no thermite. Did you read the paper? Wait, you quote mine the paper.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

You fail to find evidence for thermite so you Quote mine the paper to make up lies of thermite. Why do you make up lies about 911? You don't understand corrosion, as you fantasize of melting steel. You should have read the paper, and if you did read the paper, you don't understand it. Get some help from an expert engineer, your lies are based on an massive ignorance of chemical engineering. You can quote mine the report, "melting" shows up 5 times, you better read it again, but you will miss the part on page two which explains this corrosion took place at temperatures which don't melt steel.
Melting 5 times, "corrosion" 15 times. Looks like on the quote mining side of truth, "corrosion" wins - you failed at quote mining, you picked the wrong word.
But you win for picking the least used word used, "intergranular". You quote mined this one, and you can't define it, or explain it; as it debunks your thermite and you have no idea why.

The cool part if you know Jones, you would know he made up thermite 4 years after 911 when he decided to lie about 911.

13 years of failure for 911 truth, what is next? 13 years.

Why did you hook up with a failed movement? Stop projecting 911 truth traits to others.

BTW, an attack by thermite would show temperatures much higher than 1000 C, or 800 C shown in the study you quote mined and failed with. Clue bird time - and if we go solely by quote mining the report, I win with 15 corrosion quotes... lol - did you read the report? You don't understand it; it debunks thermite with science/engineering, which you don't understand.
Wow, you did quote mine eutectic, it appeared in the paper 9 times. Good job, quote mining something you don't understand, you have no clue what a eutectic is. It debunks your claim of thermite - you debunked yourself with quote mining. good job, you are officially a debunker, a super supporter of the inside job "official story".

Do 911 truth followers get training on quote mining, or did you copy all your ideas from 911 truth "experts" in woo?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2014, 09:52 AM   #4744
chrismohr
Graduate Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,825
What's amazing about the quote mining of Jonathan Barnett is that he himself clearly denies evidence of thermite when asked! So it's a poor source, to say the least. Yet Remo continues to assert that Barnett's use of the word "unusual" somehow points to thermite? It just ain't so. I didn't understand "eutectic" myself at first, but I quickly learned that the melting point of two metals in a eutectic mix tends to be well below the melting point of the MP of the higher-temp metal... in this case steel when in a eutectic mix with sulfur.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2014, 05:24 PM   #4745
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...
Welcome back..........

Good to see you posting.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2014, 05:26 PM   #4746
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,174
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Welcome back..........

Good to see you posting.
Thanks.
This may be just a drive-by posting. We'll see
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2014, 05:30 PM   #4747
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,221
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks.
This may be just a drive-by posting. We'll see
Hopefully this means thing are settling down in the real world.
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 07:53 AM   #4748
chrismohr
Graduate Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,825
I'm not going to create a new thread for this, someone else may want to, but today, on 9/11, Adam Taylor released a thorough and respectful rebuttal of my old YouTube videos here: http://citizenfor911truth.files.word...rismohr4-1.pdf

My YouTube videos predate the Jim Millette study. He certainly caught some errors I made, and while I disagree with his conclusions, I respect the effort he made!

Good to hear from you Oystein.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 09:31 AM   #4749
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I'm not going to create a new thread for this, someone else may want to, but today, on 9/11, Adam Taylor released a thorough and respectful rebuttal of my old YouTube videos here: http://citizenfor911truth.files.word...rismohr4-1.pdf

My YouTube videos predate the Jim Millette study. He certainly caught some errors I made, and while I disagree with his conclusions, I respect the effort he made!

Good to hear from you Oystein.
Adam Taylor makes up delusional claims of thermite. After 13 years that is kind of insane. Why does he mock the murder of thousands with lies about 911.

Adam Taylor is a simpleton who quote mines failed claims and repeats them as if he was in some cult.
Example:
Quote:
The Towers were designed to take the impact of a
Boeing 707 travelling at 600mph. See:
Wrong Adam, you have the white paper from the port authority it is bragging about WTC towers, and they made up the 600 mph, or they equaled the total impulse of an aircraft impact to the wind the tower could sustain. But a shape kinetic impact is not equal to wind distributed over the WTC shell. As seen on 911, the impact did not knock over the WTC, the WTC can sustain a 600 mph impact and stand, but it can't protect the interior from major damage - the design was to stop an aircraft from doing major damage to the WTC like a small impact did to the ESB. Why included lies in your appendix?

The WTC was designed to stop an aircraft impact to keep it out so what happened at the ESB would not happen in the WTC. Planes which would have an accident would be lost in the fog, landing - pilots don't go wondering around lost in the fog on take off they climb to above the clouds and find a VFR landing with all the fuel they have. When you are down to your last 5,000 pounds of fuel, you can't do that... Anyway

Robertson designed the building to withstand a 180 mph impact. Not sure how the dolt can pick 600 mph, what accident would be at 600 mph at 700 feet. Why would a pilot be at 600 mph in a 250 knot speed limit?

https://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...adeCenter.aspx

Quote:
The two towers were the first structures outside of the
military and nuclear industries designed to resist the
impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed
that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land
at JFK or at Newark.
Adam copies lies and posts them in his failed work. Not sure why an aircraft seeking to land is doing 600 mph. Adam has no clue on his work of copy and paste lies from 911 truth, to counter your work.

Adam fails again, thanks for sharing failed work, Adam's legacy of woo, his grand kids will have confirmation of early onset, at an early age. The inability to do rational research, spreading lies for 911 truth, Adam has peaked out as a loyal cult member in a fake movement.

Quote:
However, as we have definitively shown, Mohr’s arguments ultimately do not refute the controlled demolition theory. Nor do they
erase the genuine concern over the 9/11 controversy as a whole. The science supports the demolition theory very well, and the evidence supporting “natural collapse” appears to be unsatisfactory. Regardless of what Mohr believes, the debate is still very much continuing.
Adam has no clue all his BS is not evidence for CD. Adam is gullible falling for BS he googled from 911 truth nuts.
Adam has a fantasy he thinks he can debate. 13 years of failure, are alive in Adam. Adam has no clue the 911 Commission investigation did not do a study of the WTC collapse, NIST did. Adam has no clue the FBI did the criminal investigation - no clue.

Adam uses One Meridian Plaza as an example for some failed point with WTC 7. One Meridian Plaza fire was fought. One Meridian Plaza was never used again. Same for WTC 7, even if it stood, it was too damaged before collapse to be used again. Fire destroys buildings, WTC 7 and One Meridian Plaza. Adam uses failed analogies to fill a paper with BS.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/tr-049.pdf
This kind of BS paper is easy to do, he copied and pasted failed ideas from 911 truth.

Quote:
The One Meridian Plaza fire is if anything an indication that the type of sagging suggested by NIST could not have caused collapse, since the Plaza burned for 18 hours and produced no collapse. I
Because the fire was fought dolt. How many times do you have to tell 911 truth dolts WTC 7 fires were not fought. It is funny how Adam uses BS to back up his BS. Mixing opinions and speculation with debunking points to support his fantasy inside job of CD, with silent high explosives and no product thermite. He has no clue why the fake paper on thermite debunks itself.
How does this work with Flight 93 and Flight 77?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 10:29 AM   #4750
chrismohr
Graduate Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,825
Actually, I just created a new thread for this Adam Taylor rebuttal. It's way too major to be tacked on to this thread. Hundreds of pages in fact. Sorry Beachnut maybe your initial response can be moved over there. Be careful Oystein we'd love to have you back and this might just suck you in! (Also Oystein, please check out my most recent "Look at Iron-Rich Spheres" thread, which has some really good answers I got directly from two fire chemists about the iron-rich sphere phenomenon).
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 11th September 2014 at 10:41 AM. Reason: spelchek
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2014, 10:43 AM   #4751
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Actually, I just created a new thread for this Adam Taylor rebuttal. It's way too major to be tacked on to this thread. Hundreds of pages in fact. Sorry Beachnut maybe your initial response can be moved over there.
No problem. It is funny how he copies and pastes ideas from 911 truth blindly without thinking. I look at his work as the opposite of your efforts. Adam can't produce evidence so he tries and fails to debunk your work.

I am going for a walk to think about those who died on 911; Adam has picked to mock those murdered on 911 with his regurgitation of the 911 truth dumbed down catechism. I can't believe how rude I am, thinking about 911 truth lies this morning.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2014, 07:43 PM   #4752
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 899
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
. . . Conclusions[/b] . . . The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments. . . . There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
[b]
I haven't posted here for a year, perhaps longer. I recall trying (in vain) to help the so-called Truthers understand that their theory was nonsense. I haven't read through this thread, but perhaps someone will be kind enough to bring me up to date. Have any Truthers admitted they were wrong? What has Dr. Jones said? How about Colonel Flagg? (I think he changed his site name.)

Thanks.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2014, 10:36 AM   #4753
Spanx
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,210
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I haven't posted here for a year, perhaps longer. I recall trying (in vain) to help the so-called Truthers understand that their theory was nonsense. I haven't read through this thread, but perhaps someone will be kind enough to bring me up to date. Have any Truthers admitted they were wrong? What has Dr. Jones said? How about Colonel Flagg? (I think he changed his site name.)

Thanks.
No, they have just disappeared. Just like the magical Al
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2014, 06:10 PM   #4754
Crazy Chainsaw
Graduate Poster
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,194
Talking

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Link to James Millette's preliminary WTC Dust study:

High Res:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf

Low Res:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911..._030112web.pdf


In the summer of 2011, after finishing my 22 respectful YouTube rebuttals of Richard Gage’s Blueprint for Truth (keywords chrismohr911), I decided to see if I could organize an independent study of the World Trade Center dust to find out if thermitic materials could be found. Not being a chemist, I couldn't make a truly independent analysis of the data found in the Bentham paper alleging the discovery of unignited thematic material by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and others: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009,”

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

While I am very skeptical of claims of controlled demolition on 9/11, I’m no scientist, and I can’t independently judge the merits of this Bentham article. What if they did find thermitic materials? I wanted to see if their evidence could stand up to scientific testing. So I began to ask, what would it take to do an independent test of the dust? Some people said that for a few hundred dollars, a lab could easily test the dust. Kevin Ryan told me it would not be so easy, and he turned out to be right. He seemed to indicate he would be reluctant to provide samples of his own dust, so eventually I decided to look for a lab which:

1) Knew a protocol for searching for unignited thermitic materials in dust
2) Did not put down the idea as ridiculous or a waste of time
3) Had access to WTC dust
4) Would not just run whatever test their lab could do just to make a few hundred dollars (they had to know what they were doing and have the equipment to do it)

Finally, for my part I decided not to tell the researcher how to do his/her job. I would simply ask if they could look for unignited thermitic materials in the dust, and if so, what protocol would they suggest and how much would it cost?

The search was not easy. I contacted 24 or 25 forensic experts, laboratories, universities, fire safety experts, etc. I broadcast out a general request to refer me to someone who could do this.

Eventually, I was recommended to Dr. James Millette of MVA Scientific Consultants near Atlanta. He had all the qualifications: 1.) He had a lab that could do multiple tests. 2.) He had access to WTC dust (Kevin Ryan would not be likely to release any of his own samples) 3.) He was genuinely openminded. I asked him if he believed there was thermitic material in the dust and he said he wouldn’t know until he did the tests. He openly acknowledged that no one in the traditional scientific community has seriously investigated this question. I asked him point blank what would happen if he found thermitic materials in the dust and he said he was used to giving forensic evidence that contradicted the expectations of the people who had hired him. He is an independent scientist. “If I find it I’ll publish it.” Many 9/11 Truth activists have told me, “at last, someone is taking the Bentham study seriously! At last, a real independent investigation!”

Dr. Millette is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and works with internationally known microscopy experts. An ad hoc international team of these experts, as well as architects, engineers, and other specialists, contributed their expertise to this study. Dr. Millette had already glanced at the red-gray chips in WTC dust but never did a thorough study of them. He decided to do this study for only $1000, although the value of all his research was much more.

I thought he just might be my guy. In case things didn’t work out, I called him “Lab Guy” for a month or so on the JREF blog and other correspondences. I checked him out, and got recommendations from a top arson expert and fire safety expert.

Why did he do such a thorough study at such a low cost? He is doing a lot more with this study than just doing a job and reporting his findings. It was the centerpiece of three major presentations by his lab at the American Association of Forensic Scientists 2012 convention:

http://www.mvainc.com/2012/01/13/feb...nnual-meeting/

In addition, the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Some people on the 9/11 Truth side were suspicious of him. I’ve summarized those suspicions on my Richard Gage debate thread starting near the bottom of this page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...212725&page=86

On that thread I am willing, on a limited basis, to answer sincere questions about my decision to choose Dr. Millette for this study. I am not interested in endless rounds of attacks and will not participate in such an exercise on that thread or anywhere.

However, this thread here is about summarizing and discussing the scientific findings of this report. If you have questions about Jim Millette’s credibility, those are being dealt with on the other thread (link above). This is a moderated thread, so any questions about anyone’s honesty or integrity etc. will be referred to the other thread. Here is Dr. James Millette’s promise to us:

“Chris, I can assure you that we will proceed in an objective, scientific manner and report what we find. At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community and when I publish, it will be in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization. I do not see anything in our article that he linked… to suggest that we were publishing misleading data.” Jim Millette

I submit to you that Dr. Millette has kept his promise.

The next several posts contain the results of Dr. James Millette’s study. Onward!
Say it isn't so you guys spent a 1000
Bucks on Jones' s nonsense?
Thats nuts and people say I am crazy.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2014, 10:38 PM   #4755
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,174
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Say it isn't so you guys spent a 1000
Bucks on Jones' s nonsense?
Thats nuts and people say I am crazy.
Yes, it is so
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2014, 11:33 PM   #4756
Dog Town
NO! I'm not on Facebook! And I don't have an Iphone charger, you can use!
 
Dog Town's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
... and people say I am crazy.
Well...to be fair, it is YOUR name!
__________________
So...I wrecked your life, what the heck! My new found faith, will pay by check!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2014, 03:58 AM   #4757
Crazy Chainsaw
Graduate Poster
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
Well...to be fair, it is YOUR name!
What else would you call some one.who
Pulls pins out of his skin on his.leg or neck
With.a chainsaw?

Stupid Chainsaw just didn't sound right.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.