+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 332

Thread: September Clues

  1. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    On that I would have to agree with you. But My eyes are wide open as is my mind.

    But to date all I have seen and heard are assumptions made by different folks. Some say it was missles, some say the whole building was rigged with explosives.

    But to date no one has ever shown any definate proof of any of their claims.

    I know what I saw on television, I saw a plane hit the tower, I saw it explode. I saw these things as they happened along with lord knows how many other folks.

    Pictures as well as movies can be photo shopped and made to look like what some one wants them to.

    There are those self proclaimed experts that will give their "expert opinion" and expect others to believe every word that they say. And as I see it, they are experts on something that has never happened before. And I am supposed to believe them just because they said so. I don't think so.

    If there were missles, where are the missle fragments? And or parts of the guidance system. Things like this would be rock solid evidence. To date, absoultly nothing has ever been shown.

    I am not attempting to put anyone down for what they believe because they are entitled to think as they choose and believe what they want.

    That and the right to say it publically is just one of the things that make this country great.
    Yes I understand where yo are coming from.

    I am comming from that exact same points. Only from the other side.

    I agree that some THEORIES are far fetched even though we cannot find evidence to support deny them either.

    But one thing stands out to me and it is the fact that the official stories do not pan out either.

    Some facts opposed the official story so much that I started asking the same questions you ask but in regards to the official story.

    You say "Where are the missile fragments?"
    I say "Where are the plane fragments."

    You want me to believe your story that it happened, I want you to believe my story that it DID not happen the way they said it did.

    I do not find evidence that the official story happened. All we have are reports from other people wanting us to believe they have enough evidence to warrant warfare.

    When I ask you to go and kill your brothers it is a serious thing. You will want to be sure of my facts before you go and do something so immoral, so against human nature, to kill another like you.

    Bush sent you on the warpath almost immediately after 911 before there were decent conclusions on what happened that day. A bit premature don't you think? The Irakis do not have the war machine you have. YOu could have waited years and still be able to go and wipe them out. There was enough time for full investigation.

    Bush was just too eager to strike.

    The official story alone is a little too much for a thinking man to believe.

    No plane debris. Not even from the twin towers. Yet they get an ID book from one of the alledged hijackers in the rubble.

    A guy that is a lot fatter than Bin Laden claiming to be him and "Confessing " to 911 on a half baked recording.

    Before when they flew into buildings like the ones in china the buildings fell over like dominoes. This time the fell straight down.

    Planes flying faster than boeing 757's can fly.


    There is just too much evidence against the official story. There is just too much cover up and confiscated evidence to make me feel this is an honest "official" story.

  2. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,115

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    Yes I understand where yo are coming from.

    I am comming from that exact same points. Only from the other side.

    I agree that some THEORIES are far fetched even though we cannot find evidence to support deny them either.

    But one thing stands out to me and it is the fact that the official stories do not pan out either.

    Some facts opposed the official story so much that I started asking the same questions you ask but in regards to the official story.

    You say "Where are the missile fragments?"
    I say "Where are the plane fragments."

    You want me to believe your story that it happened, I want you to believe my story that it DID not happen the way they said it did.

    I do not find evidence that the official story happened. All we have are reports from other people wanting us to believe they have enough evidence to warrant warfare.

    When I ask you to go and kill your brothers it is a serious thing. You will want to be sure of my facts before you go and do something so immoral, so against human nature, to kill another like you.

    Bush sent you on the warpath almost immediately after 911 before there were decent conclusions on what happened that day. A bit premature don't you think? The Irakis do not have the war machine you have. YOu could have waited years and still be able to go and wipe them out. There was enough time for full investigation.

    Bush was just too eager to strike.

    The official story alone is a little too much for a thinking man to believe.

    No plane debris. Not even from the twin towers. Yet they get an ID book from one of the alledged hijackers in the rubble.

    A guy that is a lot fatter than Bin Laden claiming to be him and "Confessing " to 911 on a half baked recording.

    Before when they flew into buildings like the ones in china the buildings fell over like dominoes. This time the fell straight down.

    Planes flying faster than boeing 757's can fly.


    There is just too much evidence against the official story. There is just too much cover up and confiscated evidence to make me feel this is an honest "official" story.
    There is no evidence at all challenging the official story if there were you would have demonstrated it and you have failed in an epic manner to show any

  3. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    There is no evidence at all challenging the official story if there were you would have demonstrated it and you have failed in an epic manner to show any
    You are beginning to sound like some annoying ad on the TV by now repeating its substance-less words.

    You keep appearing featuring only these few words. No matter what I post. Saying the same thing over and over. Are you trying some hypnotic suggestion of your own?

    You are dealing with stronger minds of reason here. Not easy to sway them. Unless you use logic and reason of course but so far you have not presented any.

    I dare say sir that you sound like someone who has been brain washed or hypnotized. If you watch TV every day its quite probable.

    You are going to have to come up with something stronger than that to convince us thinking types.

    Would you please post some corroborating evidence for what you keep saying?

  4. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    I am still watching it and in the meantime they came up with a few more facts. Ill just give them to you but you will have to look for yourself. ALL the September clues videos are all lying together on Youtube.

    Findings....
    Almost all witnesses that was aired worked for major news networks. So they used their own staff to create witness accounts.

    One witness was a war journalist and he explicitly said because he knows what a missile sounds like.And he knows he heard a missile. "That was no plane it was definitely a missile."

    A lot of reporters spoke of "explosions" at first until they were prepped and then they spoke of "Airplane collisions" while a lot of reporters still had to check themselves all the time. "Where the missile sorry I meant Airplane hit the building." and some "Where the mi..... airplane hit the building."

    If there were NO missiles that day, why do people have to check themselves from saying so? I mean there were no hang gliders either but no one had to check them self from saying "hang glider"

    All on site reporters found "Not enough" evidence of a plane and the guy at Shanksville said "Absolutely no plane wreckage." All the ORIGINAL reports reveal more than the versions they have been showing over and over to make the suggestion stick.

    17 seconds before the second hit ALL 5 major news networks received a time check beep. Synchronizing 17 second countdown to second hit. When they run them all together you can see it clearly and it seems all "eyewitness" reporters were prepped to use the words " oh god" when the 17 seconds ran out.

    Some reporters were "seeing" a collapse before it happened and some reporters prepped the audience to see a collapse just before the demolition charges were set off.

    The second plane illusion hit about ten stories below the explosion when you track its path. Give that technician some coffee.

    It also hit through the building. You see a whole nose coming out in one piece and then it disappears in an explosion. That's neat. A nose is about three stories high and it goes through the building without disfiguring? Clearly a technical do over mistake.

    After that the news network put a banner there on the bottom of the screen so we cannot see what they see and comments on how they can see the plane hit, but regardless the first commentator was probably not prepped when once again he said. "You can see that plane hit right through the building."

    A lot of background views show that many (apparently rival) news networks seemed to use the same hotel rooms and venues to do their "live" coverage.

    All five networks seemed to be in the same chopper looking right through between the buildings.

    With voice recognition they found a lot of witness voices showing up in various "witnessing" that was supposed to be independent of one another and also some media staff voices show up as "independent eye witnessing."

    Most all of the digital and quarts clocks on sale in the streets below all stopped ticking at the same time. The only thing that can cause that is an electro magnetic pulse (EMP) coming from a nuclear explosion like a missile

    On Lax airport where a whole Boeing full of people should have had families waiting for them to land there was none. Only three people showed up.

    One chopper was sitting from afar giving a whole panoramic view when the building exploded without a plane. Just an explosion.

    Another chopper from far off panoramic view sees a clear sky...then zooms in quick......and suddenly you see a plane flying in from the left. Where was it a second ago in the horizon view?

    I'm just pausing a while to give you some of the facts as I remember them.

    Latest Poll. 80% of the American population now believe 911 was an inside job. 16% still believe the official story.

    Eyewitnesses change their stories as time goes on. First they did not see and only remember the explosion and then looked up to see the ball of fire while others saw a missile hit . Then they keep changing until eventually they say they saw an American airliner hit the building.

    On the footage also when you look at the surrounding buildings its sunny clear skies and the reporters confirm it. Yet most of the footage with planes is are blurry and grayish and the planes themselves are black shadows on a sunny day?

    I was reluctant to say so before but now I can definitely say that the news networks were the architects of the "visible illusion" They must think us utterly dumb to lie to us so blatantly.

    They used digital overlapping..
    It means they already had the scenario so all they did was to show it over the explosion like a transparent plastic film. They just needed to synchronize it with the explosions.

    In one clip the middle and back part of the city goes all white while the foreground part of the overlapping remains

    It was a crisp clear "nice" day yet all video footage looks like sundown or dusk or gray skies.

    The foreground and middle ground where the WTC was on and the background was different layers of rendering. While the trade centre blows up you can see the bridge "walking off" in the background and also appears to be four times closer than it really is, but the foreground and middle ground is standing still which means the chopper was not moving.

    On frame by frame analysis alongside other footage also running frame by frame looking at the same spot one can see where a lot of frames have been removed from the one.

    When listening to the sound one can hear where they cut pieces of video out except on one clip they left the sound intact but either blacked frames out or removed them causing the sound to go out of synchronicity.

    You saw it on TV? Right? They did it for YOU. Embroidered the whole thing before they showed you their 'live' coverage.

    I am again learning a lot more about that event than before. If anything this September clues is clear evidence of how the media embroidered the whole event. I can imagine that they were either bribed or threatened.

    I would have a look at their bank accounts from about six months before that day.
    Last edited by eugene66; 02-21-2011 at 11:35 PM.

  5. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Television is - and has always been - a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
    The power of TV-imagery was the driving force behind the 9/11 deception.

    Whenever a major news event is reported by the mainstream media, it will invariably be illustrated with photographs or videos in order to convey to the public some visual impressions of the event. Undeniably, the imagery connected with any given news story enhances our emotional relation to it. The way we relate to news imagery has an almost hypnotic effect on our psyche: we have come to consider the visuals of any given news story as proof of that news story’s authenticity. This is truly a ‘weak spot’ of our brains’ readiness for critical-thinking. Thus follows, unfortunately, that to challenge the authenticity of a catastrophic event shown on Live TV is way beyond what most people are willing to contemplate. However, the time has come for everyone to call television by its most appropriate, military-sounding name: "Weapon of Mass Distraction".

    The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that ‘weak spot’ of ours. We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time – understandably so, as the sheer horror of the proposed imagery generated a wall of outrage and fear – thick enough to discourage any critical review of it. In hindsight, we can only wonder why so few questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks. The picture at left shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio. (see my audio analysis in September Clues E)


    WHAT TELEVISION VIEWERS SAW ON 9/11
    The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. It featured for the most part what were meant to be “chopper shots” of the smoking towers - and very little else. The sum total of “Action Shots” (“Planecrash” and “Tower collapses”) amounted to little over 30secs of the entire morning's TV broadcasts ! Needless to say, much as the rest of the animation movie, none of these “Action Shots” depicted any sort of reality. Now, it may be difficult for many to understand why the 9/11 plotters needed to fake even the tower collapses; yet this was undoubtedly the most crucial aspect of the entire operation - and needs to be fully understood in its plain logic: The unprecedented WTC demolition job was far too risky an affair to be shown on LIVE TV - (or to let any amateur cameraman capture it on film). The 9/11 conspirators had no intention whatsoever to offer such a "pyrotechnical" spectacle to world scrutiny - just imagine how unspeakably foolish this would have been. Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event. Thankfully - for all normal people of this world - the 9/11 planners hired a poorly skilled animation crew : in their efforts to simulate reality, their crass 'artistry' and countless mistakes provide ample and repeatable proof of the trickery - forever engraved in the TV archives.

    These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence :
    A REAL PLANE CRASH ?___________________________A REAL SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE ?

    See: Detailed Analyses of Airplane Animations

    See: Detailed Analyses of Collapse Animations

    WHY FAKE THE NEWS BROADCASTS ? The 9/11 TV broadcasts were designed to ‘sell’ a fictitious terror attack to the world– by replacing the real-life events of the day (the WTC demolitions) with fake imagery. The official story was quite surreal - as were the TV images of the day and the preposterous tale of 19 kids roundly outfoxing the US Air Defense. It is essential to judge with one's own eyes the broadcasts actually aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN.

    WHAT ABOUT THE "AMATEUR" VIDEOS ? All the other videos (endlessly replayed on TV) were released only later. They have all been extensively analyzed by scores of video analysts; each and every video snippet of "amateur imagery" has been methodically dissected and compared - and empirically proved to be nothing else than computer-generated fabrications.

    HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place. The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.









    Last edited by eugene66; 02-24-2011 at 09:33 PM.

  6. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    There is no evidence at all challenging the official story if there were you would have demonstrated it and you have failed in an epic manner to show any
    Are you a real person or just a web-bot? You are like one of these children's toys that speak except their conversation is more varied.

    Eugene

    Its an interesting idea that planes buildings and views were faked. If so what were the collapses REALLY like? Or do you think there were cuts between sim and real as the buildings began to collapse?

    And if that much was faked, what about the white vans, five dancing Israelis etc? I was always uncomfortable with the cop and witness on that film some Jewish producer made about the Protocols and 911.... They struck me as acting...
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  7. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by rodin View Post
    Are you a real person or just a web-bot? You are like one of these children's toys that speak except their conversation is more varied.

    Eugene

    Its an interesting idea that planes buildings and views were faked. If so what were the collapses REALLY like? Or do you think there were cuts between sim and real as the buildings began to collapse?

    And if that much was faked, what about the white vans, five dancing Israelis etc? I was always uncomfortable with the cop and witness on that film some Jewish producer made about the Protocols and 911.... They struck me as acting...
    Thanks to Soupnazi here in my quest for more evidence I came across people who managed to investigate as much of the confiscated metal they could find.

    There is evidence that every end point of the metal bars were exploded open.They were all flared open at the ends, those that were not melted.

    Forensic evidence showed that where the metal was still whole but partially melted it was melted from half size to zero where some had thin tapered down sharp edges.

    There are witnesses who talk of crews that worked on those floors a few weeks before. The floors that were hit.

    I imagine one crew set the thermite to make it appear as if a plane flew in there. Where the big hole is.

    You can see it burning just behind the smoke immediately with "impact"

    When they came down there were no cuts in the frames except for one guy on the ground with a hand held camcorder. They really did come down "near" freefall where most engineers reckon that they should not even have made it to the ground.

  8. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Soupnazi630 View Post
    Yes and such long burning fires under piles of rubble can melt it.
    What a crock. Melting points are not reached because of duration of applied heat otherwise Earth would have been a goner millenia ago
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  9. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Aluminothermic Residues

    Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics

    A micrograph published in a USGS report shows iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during the WTC's destruction.
    Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.
    It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.
    Iron-Rich Spheres

    Evidence collected by the US Geological Survey (USGS) showed up in a 2005 report: photographs showing particles with striking spherical symmetry, ranging in diameter from under 100 microns up to about 1.5 millimeters. 1 Another set of reports, prepared for Deutshe Bank in late 2003 also shows micrographs of iron-rich spheres. 2 3
    Jones obtained WTC samples from several locations, including an apartment of a witness to the attack located across the street from the South Tower, and found spherules like the ones in the USGS photograph. His analysis showed that the spherules consisted primarily of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and oxygen. 4

    I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust, pulling upwards to the top the magnetic material and pulling this aside for further analysis. These magnetic particles were, as one might expect, rich in iron. There was a surprising amount of this iron-rich material. Although others have reported the presence of iron-rich particles in the dust, I was surprised to find the abundance of spherical particles in this iron-rich component some of which were considerably larger than previously reported. It was exciting to me to find for the first time iron-rich spheres up to about 1.5 mm in diameter in a 32.1-gram sample of dust.
    The iron-rich component of the WTC dust sample was analyzed in some detail by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray ****** dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). Using the scanning electron microscope, we found that much of the iron-rich dust was in fact composed of roughly spherical particles * microspheres [sic]. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information.
    Iron melts at 1538ºC, so the presence of these numerous iron-rich spheres implies a very high temperature. Too hot in fact for the fires in the WTC buildings since jet fuel (kerosene), paper and wood furniture * and other office materials * cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt iron or steel.
    5
    Jones searched for prosaic explanations for the metallic spherules and ruled out various scenarios such as their production from remains of the crashed aircraft. What he and fellow researchers found is that the spherules are best explained as a residues of aluminothermic incendiaries -- a conclusion that, like other diverse pieces of evidence, is consistent with a theory that thermite or its variants were involved in the destruction of the Towers.
    Illustration from USGS report with the caption reading, in part: "Map of lower Manhattan showing (as stacked bar charts) variations in concentration (in parts per million) of some predominant trace elements of WTC dust and girder coating samples. Dust samples collected indoors are indicated by the single hatch pattern and girder coating samples by the cross-hatch pattern; all others are dust samples collected outdoors."
    Residues Consistent With Incendiaries

    Analysis of the chemical composition of dust samples provides further evidence of aluminothermic arson. For example, dust samples contained particles with high levels of manganese, zinc, and barium. 6 Barium is a toxic metal used in a number of industrial processes, but unlikely to be present in significant quantities in an office building. It is, however, useful as a catalyst and accelerant of aluminothermic reactions. Zinc, barium and sulfur are all common in military thermites. 7

    References

    1. Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, pubs.USGS.gov, 2005
    2. Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property, RJ LeeGroup, Inc., 12/2003
    3. Signature Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property, RJ LeeGroup, Inc., 12/2003
    4. Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction, JournalOf911Studies.com,
    5. Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07
    6. Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materials, USGS.gov, 2001
    7. Patent 6766744: Description, dodtechmatch.com,

  10. #26

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by rodin View Post
    What a crock. Melting points are not reached because of duration of applied heat otherwise Earth would have been a goner millenia ago
    One thing is for sure and that is you sure don't know what you are talking about when it comes to metal.

  11. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    One thing is for sure and that is you sure don't know what you are talking about when it comes to metal.
    Old Timer.
    I agree with this guy because really. You make a fire. YOu close it. There is no oxygen feeding the fire like with a blacksmiths oven. It is just a pile of crap dumped on each other. There is also no sustained fire. Things will just burn till they are done. How can that melt metal?

  12. #28

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    Old Timer.
    I agree with this guy because really. You make a fire. YOu close it. There is no oxygen feeding the fire like with a blacksmiths oven. It is just a pile of crap dumped on each other. There is also no sustained fire. Things will just burn till they are done. How can that melt metal?
    If the temperature of the fire or heat is at or above the melting poing of the metal it will happen. Of course this also depends on the type of steel and thickness as A-36 ( most common steel used in I-beams ) which is softer than say 588 steel. If the A-36 beams were to melt first that would have placed addsitional stress on the bigger and heavier support beams. There are to many factors here to actually know just what really did happen. Much of it is and will be pure speculation.

  13. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    If the temperature of the fire or heat is at or above the melting poing of the metal it will happen. Of course this also depends on the type of steel and thickness as A-36 ( most common steel used in I-beams ) which is softer than say 588 steel. If the A-36 beams were to melt first that would have placed addsitional stress on the bigger and heavier support beams. There are to many factors here to actually know just what really did happen. Much of it is and will be pure speculation.
    From what I learned so far I gather that the fires could not burn at even half the heat it takes to melt those beams.

    Also another strange thing. Assuming that long exposure to heat weakens the structure as they said.

    Why then did the building that was hit second come down first? The one that had been burning for a while just happily continued burning.

    The molten metal should also point to something. Whatever they say about WTC 1 and 2 about jet fuel and all the rest is being debunked by building 7 that had NO plane and yet the same molten metal. In fact WTC 7 was later confessed by Silverstein himself to be a controlled demolition and it looks EXACTLY like 1 and 2 afterward.

    From this one can deduct that 1 and 2 must have been controlled demolitions too. Complete with thermite to cut the collums as we all suspect. This then would explain the molten metal.

  14. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    340

    Re: September Clues

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    One thing is for sure and that is you sure don't know what you are talking about when it comes to metal.
    Now then...

    Let's talk about metal. Structural steel melts at about twice the temperature of burning fuel. So how did the iron spherules form exactly?
    WWIIIKILIKE PRODUCTIONS
    Judeo Christian is an oxymoron

  15. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Let my try to explain it thus.

    Heat sink

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    This article is about components used to cool devices that generate high temperatures. For other uses, see Heat sink (disambiguation)

    Figure 1: An active (fan cooled) heat sink used for the processor cooling on a PC motherboard. To its right is a smaller pin fin heat sink used to cool the Northbridge of the motherboard.


    A heat sink is a term for a component or assembly that transfers heat generated within a solid material to a fluid medium, such as air or a liquid. Examples of heat sinks are the heat exchangers used in refrigeration and air conditioning systems and the radiator (also a heat exchanger) in a car. Heat sinks also help to cool electronic and optoelectronic devices, such as higher-power lasers and light emitting diodes (LEDs).
    A heat sink is physically designed to increase the surface area in contact with the cooling fluid surrounding it, such as the air. Approach air velocity, choice of material, fin (or other protrusion) design and surface treatment are some of the design factors which influence the thermal resistance, i.e. thermal performance, of a heat sink. One engineering application of heat sinks is in the thermal management of electronics, often computer CPU or graphics processors. For these, heat sink attachment methods and thermal interface materials also influence the eventual junction or die temperature of the processor(s). Thermal adhesive (also known as thermal grease) is added to the base of the heatsink to help its thermal performance. Theoretical, experimental and numerical methods can be used to determine a heat sink's thermal performance.
    So you see how it works? The heat keeps "running away" from the place where it is created because there is metal that connects it to where it is being cooled.

    Now what if the heat sink is a HUGE metal tower building? At one point in this building there is a jet fuel fire burning with insufficient oxygen that can only produce about 700 degrees at best, But you need more than twice that amount of heat to melt anything..

    All the time the heat created at that one tiny point (in comparison to the size of the whole building) in this huge tower (the heat) runs off down in every direction through massive solid metal connections. The spot where the fire is will never become hot enough to weaken the structure because the heat keeps "sinking" away.

    To melt metal we need.
    1) Fuel that burns at about 1600 degrees or more. Do we have that? ......no.
    2) Enough air to sustain a hot burn. Did we have that?........no
    3) A focused point to concentrate the heat where it cannot escape?.............no

    Even with a cutting torch you have to heat the local area you want to cut and then cut it QUICKLY and continuously before the heat escapes down the metal. If you can't do that you can't cut. If it cools you have to heat it up again before you can squeeze the oxygen lever to give a full blast of ogygen that heats it right up and blows the molten metal out.

    So there is no way I see that, that building would suddenly collapse all the way to the ground. And then produce a 'river' of molten steel in the basement.

    Now what can create that? It certainly was not the jet fuel!

    Evidence of thermate in the dust? Yes everywhere. Military grade Thermate. Evidence of metal that was molten with thermate? Yes the forensic evidence proves it.

    Now THERMATE can melt tonnes of steel and let it run like a foundry.
    THERMATE can melt the whole steel cage down all the way to the ground.

  16. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: September Clues

    Well knock me silly.
    I actually broke through to some minds with this demonstration.

Similar Threads

  1. Origin Of Life Clues Revealed In New Study
    By EvilZoe in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 04:37 AM
  2. Day of Dollar Death September 20-23 The Soil
    By JDoglio in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-28-2011, 04:03 AM
  3. September 26, 2008 IMPORTANT NEWS ...
    By galaxy in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-26-2008, 05:45 PM
  4. September 11 2001 and Iridium satelitte
    By greenmannowar in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 09:29 PM
  5. Remember September,10, 2001 ?
    By Phinnly Slash Buster in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 08:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •