The great thermite debate.

hazyintentions · Oct 11, 2011

doc111 said:
Really bro? I never served in the military now? I happened to have been a Corpsman. You know, the guys who patch you up when you get your ass shot or when you get fragged? My moniker clearly states my nickname witch I earned serving with YOU fuckers! Now I'm offended!

Thanks for you service, whether or not I agree with the conflict you did what you needed to do, I respect and appreciate that.

Onwards, it seems this thread is nothing but a back and forth between people who on both sides were fail to clearly articulate their ideas without attacks. This is a sad state of affairs...

NoDrama · Oct 11, 2011

doc111 said:
Really bro? I never served in the military now? I happened to have been a Corpsman. You know, the guys who patch you up when you get your ass shot or when you get fragged? My moniker clearly states my nickname witch I earned serving with YOU fuckers! Now I'm offended!

Doesn't it suck to be the victim of a hotheaded debate? I meant no disrespect, but honestly had no idea you were a Corpsman. Can I assume you gained absolutely no knowledge about First Aid or at the very least any knowledge you gained as a corpsman was substandard and not worthy of most "normal " efforts? Or would you say the military did a awesome job of training you?

How do you feel about the President calling you guys Corpse men?

Ganjuana · Oct 11, 2011

ginjawarrior said:
and what alex jones told you about the stocks?

who would buy stocks of the inusrance companies of wtc? even easier who sold their stocks

No Alex Jones didn't tell me about the stocks & options. They are public history for anyone with access to the equities market. I don't listen to Alex Jones... the guy is a looney.

You either read my post wrong or you don't know what volume is in regards to financial markets. Volume doesn't = only the purchasing of stock/equities/options/futures/etc. The stocks of those insurance companies were short sold way beyond their average volumes. As is, insurance stocks are typically very non-volatile, which also adds more to the suspicious trading of these two companies, in that specific time frame.

doc111 · Oct 12, 2011

Ganjuana said:
No Alex Jones didn't tell me about the stocks & options. They are public history for anyone with access to the equities market. I don't listen to Alex Jones... the guy is a looney.

You either read my post wrong or you don't know what volume is in regards to financial markets. Volume doesn't = only the purchasing of stock/equities/options/futures/etc. The stocks of those insurance companies were short sold way beyond their average volumes. As is, insurance stocks are typically very non-volatile, which also adds more to the suspicious trading of these two companies, in that specific time frame.

A couple of points I'd like to make. First, unless you can establish a link between those stock sales and 9/11 then they are meaningless. Second, I've heard this allegation made before and it implies a foreknowledge of the events of 9/11. Now I'm no rocket surgeon, but if I were going to perpetrate one of the largest mass murders and subsequent cover ups, do you think it would make sense to let all of my cronies know to start short selling? I'm not a financial guy, and I certainly don't give 2 shits about stocks or how they work. It just has never interested me, but I digress. These stock sales may be coincidental or not. It doesn't make sense to me to do billions in property damage, killilng thousands in the process to earn a buck. There are a whole lot less messy ways to make money. Shit, ripping off Fort Knox would've probably required less people, less planning, less bloodshed, way less property damage and could've easily netted as much if not more money! :blsmoke:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

doc111 · Oct 12, 2011

NoDrama said:
Doesn't it suck to be the victim of a hotheaded debate? I meant no disrespect, but honestly had no idea you were a Corpsman. Can I assume you gained absolutely no knowledge about First Aid or at the very least any knowledge you gained as a corpsman was substandard and not worthy of most "normal " efforts? Or would you say the military did a awesome job of training you?

How do you feel about the President calling you guys Corpse men?

I don't know, you tell me. Did the Corpsman you served with seem like they were trained well? I don't know what any of this has to do with thermite or 9/11. :-?

NoDrama · Oct 12, 2011

doc111 said:
I don't know, you tell me. Did the Corpsman you served with seem like they were trained well? I don't know what any of this has to do with thermite or 9/11.

To tell you the truth only one out of the five corpsmen we had attached to our unit was worth a shit. The other four were lazy, complainers, pessimists and had shitty attitudes. Every 50 mile hump we had you could be sure that those 4 would be riding in the first aid hummers and would make the guys with broken ankles walk becasue the first aid hummer was full, of corpsmen. Sure Vallejo was an excellent corpsman, but it was probably because he was a former Marine who wanted to become a doctor so he joined the Navy to get training.

Were you one of the Hummer riders, or the well trained corpsman who gave a shit?

The reason i am asking you whether or not you think the Military gave you good training was because the Military gave me training on Demo and Explosives, but you seem to poo poo my training and say that your rescue training gives you more credibility on collapsed buildings than someone who actually collapsed buildings with explosives.

So, please answer the question, do you feel you got good training or do you assume that military training is severely lacking and gives no one any kind of expertise?

doc111 · Oct 12, 2011

NoDrama said:
To tell you the truth only one out of the five corpsmen we had attached to our unit was worth a shit. The other four were lazy, complainers, pessimists and had shitty attitudes. Every 50 mile hump we had you could be sure that those 4 would be riding in the first aid hummers and would make the guys with broken ankles walk becasue the first aid hummer was full, of corpsmen. Sure Vallejo was an excellent corpsman, but it was probably because he was a former Marine who wanted to become a doctor so he joined the Navy to get training.

Were you one of the Hummer riders, or the well trained corpsman who gave a shit?

The reason i am asking you whether or not you think the Military gave you good training was because the Military gave me training on Demo and Explosives, but you seem to poo poo my training and say that your rescue training gives you more credibility on collapsed buildings than someone who actually collapsed buildings with explosives.

So, please answer the question, do you feel you got good training or do you assume that military training is severely lacking and gives no one any kind of expertise?

I've never "poo pooed" YOUR training and experience. AND I didn't receive my building collapse or any of my technical rescue training from the military. I got my initial training as a Corpsman from the military and I became a nationally registered paramedic on my own. That would be YOU poo pooing my training and experience. Remember, firefighter/paramedic/building collapse technician (who actually participated in the rescue operations beginning on the afternoon of 9/11 and continuing for several weeks thereafter)? I even seem to recall you completely dismissing my experience and expertise in the field. It would seem that we are at a stalemate when it comes to our "expertise" so what now? You are one of the only Marines I've ever met to speak so negatively of your Corpsmen. Such disrespect for the guys tasked with saving your ass should it get blown off. I knew more than a few lazy ass Marines but I wouldn't come on here asking if "you were one of them". On the whole, I have a lot of respect for Marines. Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful and act like such an ass to me just because we disagree?

NoDrama · Oct 12, 2011

doc111 said:
I've never "poo pooed" YOUR training and experience. AND I didn't receive my building collapse or any of my technical rescue training from the military. I got my initial training as a Corpsman from the military and I became a nationally registered paramedic on my own. That would be YOU poo pooing my training and experience. Remember, firefighter/paramedic/building collapse technician (who actually participated in the rescue operations beginning on the afternoon of 9/11 and continuing for several weeks thereafter)? I even seem to recall you completely dismissing my experience and expertise in the field. It would seem that we are at a stalemate when it comes to our "expertise" so what now? You are one of the only Marines I've ever met to speak so negatively of your Corpsmen. Such disrespect for the guys tasked with saving your ass should it get blown off. I knew more than a few lazy ass Marines but I wouldn't come on here asking if "you were one of them". On the whole, I have a lot of respect for Marines. Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful and act like such an ass to me just because we disagree?

Did I say you were one of the "Lazy squidly four" (That is what our unit called the 4 lazy corpsman)? Did you ask me about corpsman and what my opinion was? Yet you don't like my opinion so you take it as a personal attack. I only Speak negatively about those who deserve such. No one in our unit wanted anyone but Vallejo to help them, and Vallejo did his Job extremely well. I doubt any of the other four would be motivated to even get out of the hummer for anything other than mass casualties.

Is it your opinion that ALL corpsmen are the greatest on the earth, or do you know for a fact that some aren't as good as others?

doc111 · Oct 12, 2011

NoDrama said:
Did I say you were one of the "Lazy squidly four" (That is what our unit called the 4 lazy corpsman)? Did you ask me about corpsman and what my opinion was? Yet you don't like my opinion so you take it as a personal attack. I only Speak negatively about those who deserve such. No one in our unit wanted anyone but Vallejo to help them, and Vallejo did his Job extremely well. I doubt any of the other four would be motivated to even get out of the hummer for anything other than mass casualties.

Is it your opinion that ALL corpsmen are the greatest on the earth, or do you know for a fact that some aren't as good as others?

I'm not going to do this with you. If you want to discuss my credentials as a Corpsman or anything other than 9/11 or thermite, then start another thread or send me a pm. Can we get back on topic now?

NoDrama · Oct 12, 2011

doc111 said:
I'm not going to do this with you. If you want to discuss my credentials as a Corpsman or anything other than 9/11 or thermite, then start another thread or send me a pm. Can we get back on topic now?

So what do you think of Obama calling you guys Corpse men?

[video=youtube;ZlKIfzoC8D0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0[/video]

You would think after doing it once, someone would have told him, apparently not.

[video=youtube;l1DO388jsf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1DO388jsf8&feature=related[/video]

On topic, how much TNT do you think it would have taken to bring down all those buildings if that was how it was done?

doc111 · Oct 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
So what do you think of Obama calling you guys Corpse men?

[video=youtube;ZlKIfzoC8D0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKIfzoC8D0[/video]

You would think after doing it once, someone would have told him, apparently not.

[video=youtube;l1DO388jsf8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1DO388jsf8&feature=related[/video]

On topic, how much TNT do you think it would have taken to bring down all those buildings if that was how it was done?

I think it's funny as hell, but I agree, someone should've straightened him out. :dunce:

I have no idea how much TNT it would've taken, but I'm guessing a lot! :-P

NoDrama · Oct 13, 2011

doc111 said:
I have no idea how much TNT it would've taken, but I'm guessing a lot!

A lot? What makes you think that? If the official version only took an airplane and some fire, wouldn't it take only a small amount of TNT to do the same thing?

doc111 · Oct 13, 2011

NoDrama said:
A lot? What makes you think that? If the official version only took an airplane and some fire, wouldn't it take only a small amount of TNT to do the same thing?

I think we both know that it's not that simple. How much kinetic energy do you think a plane travelling at 500+ mph releases when it hits a solid object? Planes hitting towers and blowing up isn't the same as simply placing TNT inside of a building. I'm sure if you placed enough TNT with some jet fuel or other accelerant you could possibly bring down a building. Remember also, TNT placed inside of the building and blowing outward isn't going to necessarily have the same effect as a giant plane smashing into the side of the building and exploding. Place some TNT on the outside of the building and surround it with thousands of gallons of jetfuel and MAYBE your comparison MIGHT work. You may even need to have the TNT smash into the building! lol! Try again. :blsmoke:

NoDrama · Oct 13, 2011

doc111 said:
I think we both know that it's not that simple. How much kinetic energy do you think a plane travelling at 500+ mph releases when it hits a solid object? Planes hitting towers and blowing up isn't the same as simply placing TNT inside of a building. I'm sure if you placed enough TNT with some jet fuel or other accelerant you could possibly bring down a building. Remember also, TNT placed inside of the building and blowing outward isn't going to necessarily have the same effect as a giant plane smashing into the side of the building and exploding. Place some TNT on the outside of the building and surround it with thousands of gallons of jetfuel and MAYBE your comparison MIGHT work. You may even need to have the TNT smash into the building! lol! Try again.

Ok I can agree with that assertion that it would actually take a bunch of TNT to do that, but why do you rely upon the jet fuel as a factor in the collapse?

Mr Neutron · Oct 13, 2011

ginjawarrior said:
what gets me is they believe their government did something so heinous as to kill thousands of their own citizens yet all they can seem to do is moan on internet forums about it. while they carry on living their lives in the same country paying taxes to that same government literary doing nothing about it. if what they say really is the truth then i call all of them weak feeble COWARDS who are too scared to move away from the "evilness" that is their country let alone do anything about it

Incorrect, as you have been all along. I think the cowards are the ones who will resort to insults when their fantasies are challenged.

Ganjuana · Oct 13, 2011

Mr Neutron said:
Incorrect, as you have been all along. I think the cowards are the ones who will resort to insults when their fantasies are challenged.

Ontop of your statement, this guy (ganjawarrior) doesn't seem to understand that the government already did this. It was called World War 2. Yes the government had advanced knowledge of the impending Japanese attack on our country, specifically Pearl Harbor, and our government let thousands of US citizens die from that attack.

Blows my mind that people actually think "their" government would never let their own people die, and letting an attack happen on our soil to start a war (Pearl Harbor) is exactly the same thing as murder. The US is not the only exception, it goes on all over the world. What makes the US any different?

In fact our government is letting our own citizens die as we speak. All of our current conflicts are not protecting our country. I feel bad for the soldiers that are over there, some of which have been so easily manipulated into the current, useless abyss of death, that we are calling a war.

doc111 · Oct 14, 2011

NoDrama said:
Ok I can agree with that assertion that it would actually take a bunch of TNT to do that, but why do you rely upon the jet fuel as a factor in the collapse?

Because the towers had thousands of gallons of jetfuel simultaneously doused and exploded over several thousand square feet and several floors of the towers..............SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!! So, we have jets slamming into the towers (enormous transfer of energy upon impact), thousands of gallons of jetfuel simultaneously ignite and explode, which in turn ignited the majority of the combustibles that the burning fuel came into contact with. Rarely do fires begin this way. Normally, you have a single point of origin, like a faulty outlet or electronic device. I don't believe any of the highrise fires you showed in this thread started simultaneously over thousands of square feet of building. The fires were factors in all three collapses, so it only stands to reason that the source of the fires (thousands of gallons of jetfuel) would've played a factor in the collapses (at least the tower collapses). ;-)

doc111 · Oct 14, 2011

Ganjuana said:
Ontop of your statement, this guy (ganjawarrior) doesn't seem to understand that the government already did this. It was called World War 2. Yes the government had advanced knowledge of the impending Japanese attack on our country, specifically Pearl Harbor, and our government let thousands of US citizens die from that attack.

Blows my mind that people actually think "their" government would never let their own people die, and letting an attack happen on our soil to start a war (Pearl Harbor) is exactly the same thing as murder. The US is not the only exception, it goes on all over the world. What makes the US any different?

In fact our government is letting our own citizens die as we speak. All of our current conflicts are not protecting our country. I feel bad for the soldiers that are over there, some of which have been so easily manipulated into the current, useless abyss of death, that we are calling a war.

Yes, the govt. suspected a Japanese attack but didn't know exactly how, where or when they would attack. Even if they did know how, where and when, what does that have to do with 9/11? Just because one govt. conspiracy might exist doesn't make every significant historical event of this magnitude a govt. conspiracy. :eyesmoke:

NoDrama · Oct 14, 2011

doc111 said:
Because the towers had thousands of gallons of jetfuel simultaneously doused and exploded over several thousand square feet and several floors of the towers..............SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!! So, we have jets slamming into the towers (enormous transfer of energy upon impact), thousands of gallons of jetfuel simultaneously ignite and explode, which in turn ignited the majority of the combustibles that the burning fuel came into contact with. Rarely do fires begin this way. Normally, you have a single point of origin, like a faulty outlet or electronic device. I don't believe any of the highrise fires you showed in this thread started simultaneously over thousands of square feet of building. The fires were factors in all three collapses, so it only stands to reason that the source of the fires (thousands of gallons of jetfuel) would've played a factor in the collapses (at least the tower collapses).

The source of the fires was NOT jet fuel, the jet fuel was completely burned up and gone within 10 minutes. Jet fuel is also not a very volatile fuel, not like gasoline or alcohol. Jet fuel was the source of ignition, but the fires were ordinary fires caused by furniture and paperwork, they weren't that hot. If they were really that bad to cause ultra thick steel to compress and break then explain how a woman could stand INSIDE the damaged area and be alive?

remember this? You don't see foundry workers wearing slacks and a blouse when they are melting steel.
[video=youtube;px-nflAtHJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px-nflAtHJY&feature=related[/video]

The Ruiner · Oct 14, 2011

As a wise man once said regarding 9/11:

You can't argue the physical evidence, because there is nothing left to argue. Any case built on physical evidence will be defeated because there is NO physical evidence of the crime left.

If people were ever serious about holding someone accountable, they would focus on who knew what and when.

The great thermite debate.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member