Derek 2.0

I'd assume the PRC's neighbors would disagree, likewise those bordering European Russian......funny enough, most turn to the United States to safeguard their sovereignty.......

Said legislatures functioned much like most Commonwealth Governments today, with a Governor appointed by the Crown and legislators elected by the colonists, which wrote and passed local governing laws, from everything to laws, taxes and control of the militia........of course the colonists had little control over tariffs on (international) trade, trade protected by the Royal Navy (paid for by British taxpayers) in a time of war, nor "international" treaties made with North American natives.... If a vote were to come up in Westminster, and the Right Honorable Member for Stillwater-Saratoga desired to consult with his constituents, the Trans-Atlantic exchange of ideas would be measured in months.......inversely ambassadors and envoys of the day weld considerable power and influence......because of the lack of communications.

To add, the numerous longstanding economic and military alliances with various nations around the globe......to the point of subsidizing many nations economic and national security....... A rogue with many first, second and third world toadies.....

And I thought all along they'd bail on the program

Exactly, I can't think of a single instance in modern history in which a building of such size, damaged by the collapse of even larger buildings, and left to burn, was able to remain standing.........of course NYC first responders can be forgiven, what with over 400 of them killed with the collapse of the Twins.....

And the same administration that kept such an act secret, several years later, was unable to "produce" several shipping containers in Iraq full of the fore mentioned WMDs........

And that is where the conspiracy theories encompassing 9/11 fall apart...........Prior to 9/11, in not one single instance has the United States, in all its history, required killing it's own citizens, to gain public support, to wage a war against a foe that runs counter to its predetermined foreign policy.......

I'm shocked I say..... that a building left to burn for 8+ hours, without fire suppression nor intervention from fire fighters, damaged by several large buildings next to it collapsing, would fail in such a way

Indeed.......I remember thinking what a leap the then new NVG cockpits were well working for Boeing IDS in the 90s on CH-46 DCU.......... The DAS technology, combined with the helmet, will signal the infancy of eventual, truly autonomous flight (and your automated cars), in the decades ahead once the costs come down and worldwide bandwidth is dramatically increased, granting the allowance to truly share the information that it obtains....... One of the reasons I find it laughable when someone compares the air-to-air abilities of the F-35 with current legacy types........in a visual dogfight alone, the F-35's ability to engage targets, behind, above and under it will out-way any possible maneuver advantage a foe might have, to say nothing of the internal carriage of it's weapons and three spectrum stealth......

Ahh, that building 7.......the one, like I said, that was damaged during the initial attack, then further damaged once WTC1 collapsed, and was on fire for eight hours, without respite from fire fighters nor fire sprinklers What makes you think the steel melted prior to the building collapsing, and not in the fires within the rubble, in the hours, days and weeks after the attack false flag? Are you suggesting thermite in WTC 7 too? If so, I'll retort with much the same, structural material iron/steel, combined with oxidizing aluminium (from exterior cladding and other building material), buried under tons of rubble, further heated by the rubble from 1 WTC.

I have children, likewise, at times, I'll converse with the folks found outside stores, coffee shops, McDonalds and gas stations (prior to giving them change), that have put an effort into creating an interesting narrative penned across a chunk of cardboard box.......Likewise, I enjoyed the Fisher King, William's best performance in my mind.

I still await your scientific approach.......odd that once the crazy theories, coined by others (not yourself), are proven false, you launch into personal attacks......Though I'll acknowledge your yeoman's service in repeating the crazy claims of others, I think to have an actual scientific discussion on this topic, we'd require those who actually came up with the inane theories to defend them further......

The only nonsense is the stuff you're regurgitating........You're clearly stating a compound (thermite) of iron and aluminum brought the towers down, but a combination of structural red iron and aircraft grade aluminium couldn't have brought the towers down......... That's truly laughable, doubly so that you don't recognize the contradiction in your wild claim. At what point did the thermite ignite........and how? Clearly a cover-up right? But you still cling to the thermite cover-up right? So thermite yes, tons of red iron and aircraft grade aluminium, resulting in a class D metal fire, no. So who brought the Towers down and why? Humor me.......

-dp-

You mean the building next to WTC 1, sheathed in aluminium cladding, damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, and allowed to burn for nearly eight hours, sans attention from fire fighters and with fire sprinklers without any water in them........that building 7?

Right, but the Shinola you're shoveling is both adolescent and contradictory...... Omar: There is no way a thermal metal fire, comprised of iron and aluminum, happened...the condition weren't right and nobody saw a giant sparkler in the fire.......it had to be thermite, a composition of iron and aluminum, which results in a large thermal metal fire........the Bush administration/ZOGs/illuminati/Freemasons/NWO/CIA/Koch Brothers brought down the WTC clearly Derek: I thought you wanted to talk about the "science".......do you see the holes in your argument, holes large enough to fly a hijacked 767 through?

So you acknowledge that if the conditions present allowed thermite to ignite, with thermite being comprised of oxidized iron and aluminum, resulting in a lethal fire and explosion that weakened the structural integrity of the WTC, resulting in it's collapse. If so, I trust you'll acknowledge that the same conditions were also present to weaken and cause a class D metal fire, resulting in an extremely hot and explosive fire, comprising structural iron I-beams and aircraft grade aluminum, that would weaken said building integrity........

No, I answered your questions, just not to your predetermined result........now, when will you answer my questions? I did answer your question...... And where would the nano-thermites have come from? Again, what is the chemical composition of thermite? Could you produce thermite from oxidized metal and pulverized aluminum, ignited by heat? Simple question......could: combined with pulverized material from this: be ignited by this: Simple question, based on the science that you desire to discuss......

Right, I didn't you read all of your posts, nor all of your links And those special conditions would be what? Also if "special conditions" are required, why is aluminium wiring no longer used in construction? None the less, did you not suggest thermite as the possible cause? If so, and we're in agreement that thermite's main ingredient is aluminum, and there were "special conditions" present to ignite thermite, would not there also be present the "special conditions" to ignite the tons of aluminium from the 767? It appears your sources contradict? Likewise your linked claim of a "giant sparkler" being visible through dense smoke..............again, a pictorial reference to HMS Sheffield: Yet no "giant sparklers", despite the ship suffering from a aluminum fire attributed to its construction.........so what "special conditions" were present on the Sheffield, but not at the WTC.....but were present enough to indicate thermite?

Thermite is comprised of aluminum........as are Boeing 767s.......

Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire........from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft), nor the proven effects of metal fires.........likewise his mention of black smoke during the onset of the fire, but his failure to mention grey smoke as the fire progressed, an indication of a metal fire..... Do you deny that tons of aluminum were introduced? Likewise, do you deny the effects of metal fires? To add, why does the NIST no longer allow the use of aluminium wiring in the construction of homes/buildings? If you don't refute that the fires in the the twin towers were subjected to aircraft grade aluminum, resulting in large metal fires , then what would you suggest mitigated these known results lending the fires to that of a more conventional "building fire" as you cited? In effect, you must disprove natural science to further your claim.......... I'm very calm.....my sources are natural science, an understanding that you should have from high school level chemistry......... Do you put aluminum foil into your microwave? If not, why? Aluminum will burn at over 3800 degrees Celsius, which is why it's used in rocket fuel, steel melts at just over 1300 degrees Celsius......... simple enough?

Added to the inability of deduction.............That some believe the Bush Administration was capable of devising, planning and carrying out such a plan, after only being in Office for half a year, then keeping it under wraps so long is amazing......furthermore, the very same Bush administration, if capable of fulling such a complex attack, was then unable to "plant" several shipping containers full of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq........

That's more a reflection on the advancement of the F-35 versus other present day legacy aircraft.......future developments, both manned and unmanned, will utilize the helmet (more so the DAS that its connected to)...... Likewise perspective is also needed.......the current standard, what is used in our current Hornets, cost over 200k ~15 years ago, well only offering a fraction of the actual capability as today's technology.

The effects of metal and alloy fires are not hypotheses, but scientific fact...........There is no need to be an engineer (which I am), nor have a background in maritime aviation (which I also have), but simply a rudimentary understanding of various fire types......which could be simply gleamed by a person that's a member of a volunteer fire department or has been through a naval damage control course (What every 17 year old naval trainee goes through)....... At this point, you require a hypotheses that outlines why a thermal-aluminum fire, a fire that is both super heated and explosive when contrasted to your conventional building fire, didn't occur in the WTC attacks and didn't result in disaster...if you want to further this discussion on science.

I thought you wanted to discuss the science? Your regurgitated quote doesn't address the points made in regards to the effects of a both super hot and explosive fire caused by a thermal-aluminum fire.........instead refers back to "building fire", a fire that is fueled by building materials alone.