Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The explosive nature of nanothermite
#5
Peter Lemkin Wrote:JO jumped in here [as on most all 911 threads questioning or presenting evidence against the official version [which he represents here on this Forum....for whom or why one might ask]], as usual. Despite his dissembling, the work on nanothermite/ate in the dust of the WTC buidlings [all three is solid science and remains unchallenged by the overwhelming majority of unimbedded scientists.


Lemkin I represent my own position not the official version nor the 9-11 truth version. Enough with your endless repetition that I am a shill for the NIST.

Just because I disagree with your beliefs does not mean I support the position you oppose. You apparently are too dense to understand that it is not one or the other. Or more likely that both are wrong.

I was invited to DP to add some expertise about 9/11. My first encounter was the Judy Wood thread where all manner of misunderstanding was represented and you popped up along with Fetzer with a never ending barrage of ad hom attacks which you continue to this day.

You haven't a clue about the structure or understand boo about how a steel frame structure is designed or held together, how the loads are resisted, how columns and beams work or even how the towers actually came down. You are so entrenched in your beliefs that you are incapable of rational thought or considering anything else but your beliefs (religion?). You are nothing but a parrot citing what you think is valid research... research you can't even understand. And all that's fine, but you are an insulting and dismissive person who makes remarks bordering on slander. That is

I represent what I find disputes both the official and the various 9-11 truth versions... Judy Wood, Dimitri Khazelov, Steven Jones, and Niels Harrit who have all done their share of producing what amounts to nothing more than junk science about the events of 9-11. But the biggest poser is Jim Fetzer who likes to pass himself of as some sort of expert about everything. He's as slick as a used car salesman, but thankfully many see through him.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The explosive nature of nanothermite - by Jeffrey Orling - 20-10-2012, 11:42 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Tehran's Plasco Bldg. Explosive Demo - learned from 911 Peter Lemkin 1 6,603 21-02-2017, 09:05 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  WTC-7 & NanoThermite Evidence Admitted into Court - in Denmark, not USA - Naturally! Peter Lemkin 0 3,864 24-03-2015, 04:07 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  9-11 Suspects - Explosive Connections (Updated Fixed and Revised) Ed Jewett 0 3,741 10-04-2012, 07:01 PM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  9/11 Masterminds - Explosive Connections Ed Jewett 1 4,367 27-10-2011, 09:02 AM
Last Post: Anthony Thorne
  An Open Question about Nanothermite Ed Jewett 20 14,170 21-09-2011, 02:24 PM
Last Post: Charles Drago
  Great new documentary: 9/11 EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE - EXPERTS SPEAK OUT Anthony Thorne 2 4,275 15-09-2011, 08:59 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  An Explosive New 9/11 Charge Magda Hassan 8 6,489 15-08-2011, 08:52 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  "Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?" James H. Fetzer 7 9,306 04-05-2011, 08:55 AM
Last Post: Kyle Burnett
  Explosive Connections Ed Jewett 0 2,758 11-09-2010, 06:12 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  Good 12 Part Video Lecture On 911 Nanothermite! Peter Lemkin 4 4,780 20-08-2009, 05:49 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)