The Status of 9-11 Conspiracy

[beachnut]

So you really think a body hitting the ground would be as loud as an explosion and would sound like an explosion ? Think about this before you join the terrorists in total disrespect for life and instead of acting like MLK you are acting and ranting like UBL.

People hitting the ground...
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

It would be dishonest of me to represent these accounts as anything but what they are: descriptions of bodies from the towers hitting the ground. But members of the 9/11 "truth" movement have no such compunction about misrepresenting dozens of other eyewitness accounts.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

You fail to do research like your zombie cult of mindless lie repeaters. You have failed again to learn and poorly apologize for murderers. There comes a time when your continued ignorance exposes your true nature.

[Grizzly Bear]

You're comparing a 767 crashing into the building to wind loads??? Maybe if the amount of force the plane inflicted on the building was spread out over the entire structure it would have stood. But, when you concentrate that amount of energy into a relitively small area, it is like severing you superior vena cava. Its relively small in comparison to the rest of your body, but, none-the-less, is VERY important.

My understanding is that they believe the building should have arrested collapse because the damage was "localized" which to some extent is true in that the most significant damage was impact regions. But then they argue that the steel below was "cold" and "hard" and "undamaged" as justification that the building should have resisted the collapse. None of the three are particularly relevant to understanding collapse since load paths, and eccentricity are even more important.

I did the classic "can" experiment to demonstrate the idea. And an empty soda can supported about 160 pounds of my weight before it failed via crushing. Then I took another can and put a kink in it; it buckled at just 40 pounds in my case. The idea essentially lays out that a structural member's load capacity changes with the type of load it carries and in its own geometry.

[BigAl]

Collapse initiation was a surpise to several architects/engineers. Since the planes took out less the 10% of the columns, and the building were designed with highly redundant strength in order to withstand huge windloads, I can see why some were surprised.


Wind load doesn't include fire. The WTC towers were fatally flawed for fire without effective firefighting.

Wind load (A hurricane) doesn't allow for ANY structural damage, or the extra 100+ tons of concentrated load added by the debris of the airplane, or the fire and lack of firefighting that was the final cause of the collapse.

[FineWine]

The way you guys talk a person would think that other noises in and around the WTC could have been mistaken for explosions. Maybe a gas bottle here and there but that does not address the sheer volume of reports of massive explosions. Even 118 firemen made statements that they heard them inside and outside the buildings. Big explosions like tat are not caused by books falling off shelves.


Again, Bill, you need to get a grip. The noises that sounded like explosions were, in fact, explosions. Things blow up in office fires, as you've been told thousands of times. Random explosions are not suggestive of a controlled demolition. You must come to terms with this reality. A series of simultaneous blasts followed by the collapse of the building are indicative of controlled demolition. That did not happen, Bill. No matter what you do or say, it didn't happen.

[funk de fino]

Too late Beachnut. Sorry bout that.

Do I scare you Bill?

repeat again

There was a car crash near my location two days ago where a drunk driver crashed through shop window. One of the neighbours said it was a loud explosion.

Well was it Bill? was it a CD? Or a bomb?

[bill smith]

You failed to research the people who said they heard sounds like explosions; yes the person said he heard an explosion and he looked outside the WTC and it was a person who had just hit the ground. You are disrespectful by not doing solid extensive research and posting lies. You are a terrorist apologist due to ignorance.

You fail to do real research and spew lies. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home You can't debunk this so you repeat lies.


The pop, pop, pop is each floor failing.
0.869 0.397 0.314 0.272 0.245 0.226 0.212 0.201 0.192 0.184 0.177 0.171 0.166 0.162 0.157 0.154 0.150 0.147 0.144 0.141 0.138 0.136 0.134 0.131 0.129 0.127 0.125 0.124 0.122 0.120 0.119 0.117 0.116 0.114 0.113 0.112 0.110 0.109 0.108 0.107 0.106 0.105 0.104 0.103 0.102 0.101 0.100 0.099 0.098 0.097 0.097 0.096 0.095 0.094 0.094 0.093 0.092 0.091 0.091 0.090 0.089 0.089 0.088 0.088 0.087 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.085 0.084 0.084 0.083 0.083 0.082 0.082 0.081 0.081 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.078 0.077 0.077 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.074 0.073 0.073 0.073 0.072 = 12.081 seconds These model the times of each floor hitting the next to the bottom.

You post lies; why is your research so shallow and one sided? Are you a terrorist apologist or the worse 911 researcher on earth?

Jeez at his rate I'll have to give back my Super-Truther wings. lol

[911kongen]

Do I scare you Bill?

repeat again

There was a car crash near my location two days ago where a drunk driver crashed through shop window. One of the neighbours said it was a loud explosion.

Well was it Bill? was it a CD? Or a bomb?

Yes, it must have been a bomb! Or was it super-duper themite?

[A W Smith]

Comments Bill?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977099&postcount=767

[SteveAustin]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg

Original:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8884/firemen.jpg


I suppose we know your standards now...

And BUMP for steve:

I guess I'm the only one here who does not see any evidence of a faked picture over at WRH.

All you have done here, hmmm let me put it this way...

Let's pretend we are talking about the existence of the sun. I say it exists and you say it does not. So I show you video (or a picture) of the sun up in the sky as proof. You come back with video (or a picture) taken at night and say "see no sun, this is proof that your video/picture is a fake"

You have done nothing to prove that the photo over at WRH is a fake. You have simply provided another photo and claimed without any evidence whatsoever that yours is the real one and the other is fake.

You are also trying to claim, that because of your non-evidence of a single faked photograph, that the entire WRH website and everything that comes out of there are lies.

How can you prove that your version of the picture is the real picture?

[Longfellow]

Okay, one more time, just because some people insist on taking legitimate testimony and turning it into something it's not:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_controlled_demolition.html
This topic is old and has long been addressed. What people heard were not demolitions. This is established.

Furthermore, you cannot have demolition noises yet lack demolition evidence, such as structural assemblies that have been explosively disintegrated. Once again, all recovered steel shows signs of mechanical, not explosive, distortion. And that's only one of the many pieces of evidence conclusively refuting the notion that explosives were used.

This is a dead subject. A long dead subject. If a conspiracy addict tries to resurrect it, just post the above links in response. It doesn't deserve any more treatment than that.

Q.E.D. (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/qterms/g/quoderatdemonst.htm)

[ElMondoHummus]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_core_heat4.jpg

Original:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8884/firemen.jpg


I suppose we know your standards now...

And BUMP for steve:

Instead of posting the photo, let's post the video:
a0kWya_oVC8&

The stills of the scene start at around the 1:47 mark. The actual video of the light being moved is around the 2:04 mark.

Don't expect a substantive response from SteveAustin. This is too contrary to his fantasy. I recommend he be put on ignore; he's yet to contribute anything substantial, preferring to be hollowly argumentative instead.

[SteveAustin]

You've been caught lying again. Your insane movement hasn't proved anything, as you know. Every myth that you cling to is demonstrably false. Your falsehood about peer-reviewed journals has been comprehensively debunked on this forum. The frauds, fools, and scoundrels who lead you suckers by the nose have NEVER subjected their bogus science to peer-review. Jones was disciplined by his department precisely for his attempts to circumvent academic protocols. You are not the only liar to pretend that the tawdry pay-for-play rag engaged by Jones and his accomplices is a serious journal. By brazenly using the plural, "peer reviewed journalS, you've added a new twist. Apart from Bentham, what peer-reviewed journals are we talking about?

Let's see some of your "evidence." What do you have that hasn't been demolished a thousand times? Where would you like to start? The pods? The missing steel? "Pull it" (Oh, God, please not "pull it"!)? How about Grifter's lie about the airphones on AA77? Voice-morphing technology? Remote-controlled Boeing airliners? Marvin Bush? Squibs? The hijackers who are still alive?

C'mon, recycle your favorite crapola for another stroll down memory lane and see how long it lasts.

Your dishonest, mindless movement doesn't "prove"; it merely asserts nonsense.

LOL, this is more "desperation on the cusp of madness" reply, just like from beachnut.

I have not seen a single peer reviewed article in any journal that has debunked anything in the truth movement, or any of the truth movements peer reviewed articles

Your desperate attempts to label a peer reviewed article as non-peer reviewed is a feeble attempt to keep you little cult alive and keep the real terrorists and their apologists out of jail.

If you had any peer reviewed articles that debunks the truth movements peer reviewed articles many of you would have already posted them. Since there are none you are all left with dishonest means of avoiding the truth.

And the more time goes by the more desperate you JREF "debunkers" become. And it is very obvious.

[Gytha Ogg]

LOL, this is more "desperation on the cusp of madness" reply, just like from beachnut.

I have not seen a single peer reviewed article in any journal that has debunked anything in the truth movement, or any of the truth movements peer reviewed articles

Your desperate attempts to label a peer reviewed article as non-peer reviewed is a feeble attempt to keep you little cult alive and keep the real terrorists and their apologists out of jail.

If you had any peer reviewed articles that debunks the truth movements peer reviewed articles many of you would have already posted them. Since there are none you are all left with dishonest means of avoiding the truth.

And the more time goes by the more desperate you JREF "debunkers" become. And it is very obvious.

My irony meter. It just exploded.

[Edx]

The way you guys talk a person would think that other noises in and around the WTC could have been mistaken for explosions. Maybe a gas bottle here and there but that does not address the sheer volume of reports of massive explosions. Even 118 firemen made statements that they heard them inside and outside the buildings. Big explosions like tat are not caused by books falling off shelves.
Explosions in demolitions arent random, Bill. They are timed and sequential. Why did they hear explosions at the Windsor tower fire? Does that mean bombs were in there too?

[SteveAustin]

SA, grow a pair and answer this post or provide a credible link for your statement that a story was leaked about 1,000 government paid shills. I can't find a credible source for your statement and my google-fu is quite good.

More dishonesty from another JREF debunker in trying to make this claim.

All it takes is for anyone to read through this thread to see how very dishonest everyone who makes this claim is.

How can you people live with yourselves? Do you have souls?

[Gytha Ogg]

Maybe a gas bottle here and there but that does not address the sheer volume of reports of massive explosions. Even 118 firemen made statements that they heard them inside and outside the buildings. Big explosions like tat are not caused by books falling off shelves.

Wait. 8 years on and truthers still don't understand what a similie is?

[SteveAustin]

Instead of posting the photo, let's post the video:
a0kWya_oVC8&

The stills of the scene start at around the 1:47 mark. The actual video of the light being moved is around the 2:04 mark.

Don't expect a substantive response from SteveAustin. This is too contrary to his fantasy. I recommend he be put on ignore; he's yet to contribute anything substantial, preferring to be hollowly argumentative instead.

LOL, what you think video can't be doctored? You need to do more than just present pictures or video as proof with something like this, you need to prove that those pictures or video you post are undoctored.

[bill smith]

Instead of posting the photo, let's post the video:
a0kWya_oVC8&

The stills of the scene start at around the 1:47 mark. The actual video of the light being moved is around the 2:04 mark.

Don't expect a substantive response from SteveAustin. This is too contrary to his fantasy. I recommend he be put on ignore; he's yet to contribute anything substantial, preferring to be hollowly argumentative instead.

'm surprised that anybody could have thought that people could have leaned over a heat source that would give off that intensity of light or even have come that close..

[A W Smith]

'm surprised that anybody could have thought that people could have leaned over a heat source that would give off that intensity of light or even have come that close..

apparently Steve-0 does.

[ElMondoHummus]

apparently Steve-0 does.

Let's also remember: The original claimant was Steven Jones.

ETA: Or is that the Steve-0 you're referring to?

[BigAl]

'm surprised that anybody could have thought that people could have leaned over a heat source that would give off that intensity of light or even have come that close..

People that saw the cleanup know that this picture is fake.

I saw the clean-up, at least some of it.

[JimBenArm]

More dishonesty from another JREF debunker in trying to make this claim.

All it takes is for anyone to read through this thread to see how very dishonest everyone who makes this claim is.

How can you people live with yourselves? Do you have souls?
Yes. Several. Most of them I simply took from someone else, but a few I purchased.

Are you looking for a new one?

[eirik]

which flies in the face of this. which you didn't bother to watch.
2873871255585611926&hl

Comments BS?

What about Kevin Cosgrove BS? does he mention explosions? Do you even hear explosions from Kevin Cosgrove's phone as the building collapses around him?

iK8qJ1cJ9EA

Comments BS?

The 9/11 call made a deep impression. I am speechless

[bill smith]

apparently Steve-0 does.

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.

[newton3376]

Been done. http://www.911myths.com/Trinity.pdf. It seems that some of the audio has been doctored; some truther failed to find the sounds they needed to hear to support their delusion, so they added some in.

I read through that pdf 3 times over lunch....I'm no expert on signals analysis but I do have some experience in it.

IMO that was a very well done analysis of the signals that is very convincing.

[BigAl]

We learn real stuff from each other

In the land of the blind, nobody can see anything.

[TruthersLie]

I seriously doubt that all of those people could have been wrong about hearing massive explosions. I can drown you in links and videos at a moments notice. 118 firefighters alone made statements reporting often very large explosions. No....there is something dodgy about the audio Dave. And here are so many implictions to that that it would make your head spin.

Oh poor bill.

datamined quotes which when examined show there were NO cd charges going off.
I know you have been busted on this before... and you bring it up again.

I can think of 15 or 20 things which when in fires explode and all of them would be in the office buildings. Can you eliminate ANY of them bill?

[ElMondoHummus]

Apparently this isn't sinking in. So: Bump. Again.

Okay, one more time, just because some people insist on taking legitimate testimony and turning it into something it's not:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_controlled_demolition.html
This topic is old and has long been addressed. What people heard were not demolitions. This is established.

Furthermore, you cannot have demolition noises yet lack demolition evidence, such as structural assemblies that have been explosively disintegrated. Once again, all recovered steel shows signs of mechanical, not explosive, distortion. And that's only one of the many pieces of evidence conclusively refuting the notion that explosives were used.

This is a dead subject. A long dead subject. If a conspiracy addict tries to resurrect it, just post the above links in response. It doesn't deserve any more treatment than that.

[A W Smith]

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.


Well let the "grinding" begin. Comments on this post Bill?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977099&postcount=767

[TruthersLie]

I guess I'm the only one here who does not see any evidence of a faked picture over at WRH.

snip

Let's pretend we are talking about the existence of the sun. I say it exists and you say it does not. So I show you video (or a picture) of the sun up in the sky as proof. You come back with video (or a picture) taken at night and say "see no sun, this is proof that your video/picture is a fake"

You have done nothing to prove that the photo over at WRH is a fake. You have simply provided another photo and claimed without any evidence whatsoever that yours is the real one and the other is fake.

You are also trying to claim, that because of your non-evidence of a single faked photograph, that the entire WRH website and everything that comes out of there are lies.

How can you prove that your version of the picture is the real picture?

you need to stop trying to play the "lets pretend" game. That is your biggest problem there.

[BigAl]

How can you people live with yourselves? Do you have souls?

I was an eyewitness to some of the events at WTC. When I hear Twoofer claims about what I saw, I know Twoofer lie.

I knew two people that died on 9/11, one in Flt 93 and one in WTC and countless others that were involved to some degree. I know I am not alone in JREF in having these connections to the events of 9/11. I know that no eyewitnesses claim man-made demolition at WTC.

I expect Islamists to try to attack Manhattan again. The "Truth Movement" is part of the problem, not part of the solution as far as trying to prevent that from happening.

I can sleep well knowing that all the death and destruction was caused by 19 Arab Islamists lead by bin Laden. I knew that Islamists were trying to kill me and my friends based on the 1993 bombing. 9/11 was no real surprise except in the scale.

[newton3376]

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.

How can any of this be true?

You don't have the experience or education in any of the relevant areas of mathematics, physics, or engineering to even properly analyze various arguments....so how would you know who is right when a bunch of engineers are talking?

If the vast majority of engineers and scientists disagree with the truther claims with only a small number agreeing (and many, if not most, of those with no expertise in the relevant fields).......

If the truthers have produced almost no peer reviewed articles (and the only one I know of is very questionable) and there are over 200 peer reviewed articles that do not support the truther side......

Then it would seem the correct approach would be to listen to the vast majority of experts and be skeptical of the claims of truthers until they (the truthers) can provide such overwhelming evidence or arguments that they overturn the scientific consensus.

This is how science works.

Majority views have been challenged before and when there is good, solid evidence to overturn that viewpoint then eventually it does get overturned. Sometimes it takes time and effort....sometimes there are politics, money, or other non science related issues that can hinder it....but eventually the scientific and engineering communities accept the evidence and change their position.

But until that happens the best position for laymen who lack the education, training, and experience to independently evaluate the specific science and engineering topics, is to accept the view of the majority of experts.

This is what my approach is when it comes to topics that are outside my specific and narrow area of expertise. Now, I do have enough knowledge and training to read a science and engineering paper and recognize obvious errors in the math or physics, but for the details I have to rely on the experts.

This is how most engineers and scientists that I work with and/or are friends with operate. Non engineers and non scientists should do likewise.

[FineWine]

LOL, this is more "desperation on the cusp of madness" reply, just like from beachnut.

I have not seen a single peer reviewed article in any journal that has debunked anything in the truth movement, or any of the truth movements peer reviewed articles


NIST employed over a thousand physicists, structural engineers, architects, fire safety experts, metallurgists, and materials scientists to produce 10,000 pages of charts, diagrams, graphs, computer simulations, calculations, and analyses. You have read none of it. Far more importantly, no serious researchers anywhere in the world have discovered errors of science, such discoveries being the exclusive domain of angry, unintelligent, badly educated adolescents.

The "truth" movement has published no peer-reviewed articles. Your lie about the tawdry pay-for-play journal that accommodated Jones and his fellow frauds has been exposed here. Please stop insulting us with your falsehoods.



Your desperate attempts to label a peer reviewed article as non-peer reviewed is a feeble attempt to keep you little cult alive and keep the real terrorists and their apologists out of jail.


You've been caught lying again. Bentham is rubbish. Your empty-headed prattle doesn't disguise your willful ignorance. Your insane and evil movement is wrong about everything. It has produced absolutely nothing to support the lunatic myths that you America-hating fanatics cling to. I have asked you repeatedly to show us ONE of your cherished myths that can survive scrutiny. You can't do it.



If you had any peer reviewed articles that debunks the truth movements peer reviewed articles many of you would have already posted them. Since there are none you are all left with dishonest means of avoiding the truth.

And the more time goes by the more desperate you JREF "debunkers" become. And it is very obvious.

Listen closely:

YOUR INSANE MOVEMENT HAS PRODUCED NO--ZERO-- PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES.

When will Jones and his accomplices share their "work" with an independent lab?

[Grizzly Bear]

Instead of posting the photo, let's post the video:
a0kWya_oVC8&

The stills of the scene start at around the 1:47 mark. The actual video of the light being moved is around the 2:04 mark.

Don't expect a substantive response from SteveAustin. This is too contrary to his fantasy. I recommend he be put on ignore; he's yet to contribute anything substantial, preferring to be hollowly argumentative instead.

I don't expect much out of him... he did exactly thing I thought he would and tried to cast doubt by stating the likelihood of the video and photos being doctored. When I first saw the picture I wasn't aware it was doctored with an orange photo filter, what tipped me off was the close proximity of the rescue personnel standing so close to such a heat source. The radiant heat from it at that proximity would have been enough to kill them. And videos show the rescue personnel moving the light source several times as they performed search and rescue operations at night. Even bill smith caught on and he's one of the least technically qualified posters in the TM commenting on this... That I believe says volumes. If the evidence if something is so overwhelming I'm compelled to ask why his heroes at WRH are so intent on maintaining such fraudulent claims, seems to me if the evidence was over flowing there would be absolutely no justification to use even a single faked resource. Of course WRH is already a cesspool of ************ to begin with.

He's on ignore now since I got him to do what I set out to make happen, to expose more of his hollow standards in defending liars.

[FineWine]

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.



No, Bill, boring us with stupidity and inability to learn is not "grinding us down." Your repated humiliations have not advanced your evil and insane movement. In what coherent sense has your tiny gaggle of America-hating cretins "advanced"? Where have you advanced to? Everything trick you've tried, every transparent con you've attempted, has failed miserably. You have nothing. How will a bunch of lazy, ignorant, low-IQ liars break a story? That would require making an effort, you know.

[Arus808]

why is steve commenting on explosions when he hasn't even resolved his '1000 paid" shills claim?


Steve, you have to close out some of your arguments before you can start on another failed attempt at your gross lying.

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't expect much out of him... he did exactly thing I thought he would and tried to cast doubt by stating the likelihood of the video and photos being doctored.


He did? Pfff... that figures. Conspiracy addicts will believe their sources uncritically, even when when it's demonstrated that their sources lied, but they'll spurn real evidence without missing a beat. That's just typical.


When I first saw the picture I wasn't aware it was doctored with an orange photo filter, what tipped me off was the close proximity of the rescue personnel standing so close to such a heat source. The radiant heat from it at that proximity would have been enough to kill them.


Yes, exactly. I've been in front of just hot pizza ovens, and during a barbeque fest, one hell of a cool mobile rig. Neither of those were enough to kill, obviously, but even at just cooking temperatures (well, the BBQ rig was firing the wood first, turning it to coal; it had a neat tube with a flame jet shooting down it, and you stuck the chopped wood in the other end :D), it was uncomfortable. And we're talking what, 500 degrees F? The one gas pizza oven ran at 525, but the wood ones I have no clue about. Anyway, my point is that I can't imagine being mere feet away from 2400+ degrees.


And videos show the rescue personnel moving the light source several times as they performed search and rescue operations at night. Even bill smith caught on and he's one of the least technically qualified posters in the TM commenting on this... That I believe says volumes. If the evidence if something is so overwhelming I'm compelled to ask why his heroes at WRH are so intent on maintaining such fraudulent claims, seems to me if the evidence was over flowing there would be absolutely no justification to use even a single faked resource. Of course WRH is already a cesspool of ************ to begin with.

He's on ignore now since I got him to do what I set out to make happen, to expose more of his hollow standards in defending liars.

Ignoring the fact that the WhatReallyHappened site is incredibly misnamed (should be more like "WhatWeWishHappenedSoWeCanJustifyParanoidFantasies"), I think the lack of critique of the fraudulent claim is simply the effect of not caring what the actual truth is. They found something that looked good, and it'll catch people who haven't studied the event, so from their point of view, why change it?

That's the part that bugs me about the so-called "Truth" movement: It's about proselytism. Not about actually finding the truth. If they were truly concerned about discovering truth, they wouldn't be using the "mountain of questions" approach without considering the fact that many of their objections actually contradict each other. They'd be trying to find out what actually happened. But do we see that? Or do we see them trying to make disproven myths stick instead?

It's an intellectually dishonest mindset.

[A W Smith]

No comment Bill?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977099&postcount=767

I realize the first video is rather long and exceeds your attention span. But for Cosgrove even? So you are not going to point out the explosions during the phone call?

[eromitlab]

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.

:i:

[bill smith]

In the land of the blind, nobody can see anything.

'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King'.

[Comsat Angel]

Has Steve posted his link yet?

<tumbleweed>

<crickets>

<wind>

[Comsat Angel]

From Post 815:

"the so-called "Truth" movement: It's about proselytism"

You, sir, have nailed this movement in 7 words.

[beachnut]

This my friends is known as "desperation on the cusp of madness"
You are spreading delusions of a failed movement. The madness, fraud and lies are in your movement.

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[bill smith]

Has Steve posted his link yet?

<tumbleweed>

<crickets>

<wind>

Are you looking for evidence that these forums are full of professional Shills ?

[FineWine]

Are you looking for evidence that these forums are full of professional Shills ?


No such evidence can exist as there are no professional shills. If anybody was willing to pay people to waste time on tiny blogs, the line for applicants would stretch around the globe.

[Foolmewunz]

'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King'.

Why do you hate America Sammy Davis, Jr. ? :spjimlad::spjimlad:

[beachnut]

We Truthers are not like you guys. We are people of our own opinions and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are. We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite. That's why we continually grind you down. We learn- you don't. We advance- you stagnate. It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story. Resistance is futile.
This is a problem; you use opinions when you should be presenting facts and evidence. You are not grinding down anyone but yourself with your lies and half-baked delusions.

You are going backward with each post and you failed to realize your movement died on 911 due to terminally stupid conclusions based on lies, faulty opinions and hearsay.

[Justin39640]

Just one of them said something like ' do you know when they perform a controlled demolition on a buildiing? The way you get that pop-pop-pop-pop-pop ? that's what i thought I saw '

why are you lying here?
you added "thats what i thought i saw" to the end when the guy never said it
also
that guy is a new yorker
i just dont think you understand new yorker
to me (a new yorker) its sounds like he made a simile (which new yorkers love to do even when it dont make sense "that *********** thing was like *********** forget about it")

i have relatives in the UK
we see each other a lot
i cant understand them for ****
and vise versa

[Justin39640]

This is a problem; you use opinions when you should be presenting facts and evidence. You are not grinding down anyone but yourself with your lies and half-baked delusions.

You are going backward with each post and you failed to realize your movement died on 911 due to terminally stupid conclusions based on lies, faulty opinions and hearsay.

so basically what ole bill is trying to say
is that truthers are arguing without a coherent central idea to base allegations on?
good job bill
on top of that it seems that bill thinks debunkers are organized and generally agree on a subject minimizing confusion
way to go bill
with friends like you who needs the NWO

[bill smith]

This is a problem; you use opinions when you should be presenting facts and evidence. You are not grinding down anyone but yourself with your lies and half-baked delusions.

You are going backward with each post and you failed to realize your movement died on 911 due to terminally stupid conclusions based on lies, faulty opinions and hearsay.

Ordinary peple are made of the same stuff as me Beachnut and we do not tolerate rubbish science that tries to tell us that we do not see what we see. An expert is only as good as his honesty. You can tell us that black is white but I can tell you one thing for sure- we will NOT go for it.

[FineWine]

Ordinary peple are made of the same stuff as me Beachnut and we do not tolerate rubbish science that tries to tell us that we do not see what we see. An expert is only as good as his honesty. You can tell us that black is white but I can tell you one thing for sure- we will NOT go for it.


But ALL--100%--of the rubbish science is produced by your evil, insane movement and you swallow it uncritically. You reject real science because it is inconvenient to your delusions.

[Grizzly Bear]

An expert is only as good as his honesty. You can tell us that black is white but I can tell you one thing for sure- we will NOT go for it.
Look at what you just did to my irony-meter:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1135/russiantsarhydrogenbomb.jpg

[bill smith]

Look at what you just did to my irony-meter:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1135/russiantsarhydrogenbomb.jpg
When the war is over Grizzly maybe you can buy me a cocktail.

[beachnut]

Ordinary peple are made of the same stuff as me Beachnut and we do not tolerate rubbish science that tries to tell us that we do not see what we see. An expert is only as good as his honesty. You can tell us that black is white but I can tell you one thing for sure- we will NOT go for it. No; ordinary people use facts and evidence to form rational conclusions, you use lies and hearsay to form delusional conclusions (on 911).

You post rubbish so you do tolerate rubbish. You post pure rubbish as fast as you can find a lie about 911. You lie about telling lies as you post more lies.

The typical off topic post of conspiracy theorist filled with off-topic delusions. Posting lies and delusions as freely as you do, you should heed your own words to stop being a hypocrite and a liar.

Your lies are the truth because you say so and the sound of bodies hitting the ground from 1000 feet is what?
Status: You post lies. 911 conspiracy theorist post lies. Proof; complete lack of evidence and logic.

You tell lies; you implied the sounds were explosives that people talked about. I posted the truth in this source.
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

It would be dishonest of me to represent these accounts as anything but what they are: descriptions of bodies from the towers hitting the ground. But members of the 9/11 "truth" movement have no such compunction about misrepresenting dozens of other eyewitness accounts. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
You post nothing save some chitchat and fail to learn what a simile is. Where is your evidence?

Status of the conspiracy theories on 911 - willful ignorance - Stillborn on September 11, 2001.

[newton3376]

Ordinary peple are made of the same stuff as me Beachnut and we do not tolerate rubbish science that tries to tell us that we do not see what we see. An expert is only as good as his honesty. You can tell us that black is white but I can tell you one thing for sure- we will NOT go for it.

[ricola commercial guy]Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeetarded.[/ricola commercial guy]

Sorry Billl.....this comment is idiotic...

You don't ignore the experts cause you don't like what they are saying. You aren't qualified to even talk about their conclusions so just stop.

No one cares about your opinion or what you think. Truthers are entertaining yes.....but they aren't taken seriously.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We are people of our own opinions [...]


That's at least half your problem. "Well, I think that blah-blah-blah, and that's as good as truth to me."

[...] and are not tied to an immutable central story as you are.


Which apparently means you get to just make stuff up and see if it sticks.

We learn real stuff from each other where all you learn is the next debunker soundbite.


I wouldn't classify a 10,000-page engineering analysis as a "soundbite". Nor would I classify complete, sourced, and in-context quotes as "debunker soundbites".

That's why we continually grind you down.


Children with ADHD would grind anyone down, but not for the delusions you hold.

We learn- you don't.


Drug-induced musings about the possibilities of this-and-that are not what most people would refer to as "learning".

We advance- you stagnate.


That's a bold statement, considering your movement has gone from demanding the imprisonment or death of the alleged perpetrators to simply demanding a "new investigation".

"Advancing in the negative direction."

It will be so to the end when we inevitably break this story.


Yup. Just like the Apollo Moon landings and the JFK Assassination...

Resistance is futile.


Nothing like finishing with a quote from a science fiction television series to remind everyone that you're the one living in reality. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

When the war is over Grizzly maybe you can buy me a cocktail.

Stop crying Bill, I didnt mean to scare you off.

repeat again

There was a car crash near my location two days ago where a drunk driver crashed through shop window. One of the neighbours said it was a loud explosion.

Well was it Bill? was it a CD? Or a bomb?

[bill smith]

Stop crying Bill, I didnt mean to scare you off.

repeat again

There was a car crash near my location two days ago where a drunk driver crashed through shop window. One of the neighbours said it was a loud explosion.

Well was it Bill? was it a CD? Or a bomb?

Fow much doubt can there be that there were hundreds of loud explosions given that there re lierally HUNDREDS of reports of them given on 9/11 itself. Listen to hundreds of first responders reporting them. Therefore the audio in those cameras has been tampered with considering that none of these explosions are on tape.

It's that or say that he hundreds of reports from first responders are mistaken. Ido't think 118 firefihters would have made unsolicited mentions of 'explosions' lightly. Those guys are trained and thought that the explosions were involved in the destruction of the buildings. They would not have mistaken falling items for rxplosive detonatons.

[funk de fino]

Fow much doubt can there be that there were hundreds of loud explosions given that there re lierally HUNDREDS of reports of them given on 9/11 itself. Listen to hundreds of first responders reporting them. Therefore the audio in those cameras has been tampered with considering that none of these explosions are on tape.

It's that or say that he hundreds of reports from first responders are mistaken. Ido't think 118 firefihters would have made unsolicited mentions of 'explosions' lightly. Those guys are trained and thought that the explosions were involved in the destruction of the buildings. They would not have mistaken falling items for rxplosive detonatons.

Bill

Stop running and answer my question. Was there explosives in the car that crashed through the window?

Are firefighters trained in recognising demo explosive Bill? I was in the forces I could probably recognise them. I have never heard a body hit the pavement from 110 stories up though and would probably describe it as an "explosion" eh?

I guess all the worlds media who filmed it live and every witness with video evidence and all other wtiness who say it was not a CD are complicit?

[Dave Rogers]

Fow much doubt can there be that there were hundreds of loud explosions given that there re lierally HUNDREDS of reports of them given on 9/11 itself. Listen to hundreds of first responders reporting them. Therefore the audio in those cameras has been tampered with considering that none of these explosions are on tape.

It's that or say that he hundreds of reports from first responders are mistaken. Ido't think 118 firefihters would have made unsolicited mentions of 'explosions' lightly. Those guys are trained and thought that the explosions were involved in the destruction of the buildings. They would not have mistaken falling items for rxplosive detonatons.

Bill, how long are you going to maintain your mind-bogglingly stupid take on this? If there were hundreds of reports of explosions, then there were exposions or sounds very much like explosions. If the explosions don't show up on the videos, then they took place at different times and/or places than the times and places that he videos were recorded. If they were at different times, they weren't at the right time to be the cause of the building collapses. If they were at the same times but in different places, then they weren't loud enough to be picked up everywhere in downtown Manhattan, so they weren't big enough to be the cause of the building collapses. Therefore, with absolute certainty, they weren't the cause of the building collapses.

This doesn't require a three-digit IQ to grasp.

Dave

[Gytha Ogg]

I wish I could find the video now, but I remember seeing video footage very soon after 9/11 on the news of firefighters at the bottom of one of towers. There was chaos everywhere. I heard the explosion-like sounds myself, and wondered what the hell could be making such loud noises. Whoever was filming then realised they were the sound of people who had thrown themselves to their deaths hitting the ground at incredible speed. They were horrified, as was I.

I am amazed that 1) truthers are unable to understand what a similie is, and 2) they would twist such horrific deaths to fit their delusions of bombs going off.

Sick.

[MikeW]

I wish I could find the video now, but I remember seeing video footage very soon after 9/11 on the news of firefighters at the bottom of one of towers. There was chaos everywhere. I heard the explosion-like sounds myself, and wondered what the hell could be making such loud noises.
The Naudet brothers 9/11 film makes that point - they're in the lobby, and the occasional crashes outside seem very loud.

[Gytha Ogg]

The Naudet brothers 9/11 film makes that point - they're in the lobby, and the occasional crashes outside seem very loud.

Yes, I think that was it. Thanks. :)

as funk de fino said,

I have never heard a body hit the pavement from 110 stories up though and would probably describe it as an "explosion" eh?

exactly. I'd never heard it until then (as I'd imagine most of us hadn't), and was shocked at how loud it was. Many loud booming sounds may sound like explosions, but aren't. Then again, most people understand the concept of a similie.

[bill smith]

Yes, I think that was it. Thanks. :)

as funk de fino said,



exactly. I'd never heard it until then (as I'd imagine most of us hadn't), and was shocked at how loud it was. Many loud booming sounds may sound like explosions, but aren't. Then again, most people understand the concept of a similie.Would you really say that the sound could have been loud enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

[Gytha Ogg]

Would you really say that the sound could hve been lould enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

Bolding mine. Yes, it could be mistaken for that, just as funk's example of a car crashing through a window initially was by his neighbour (the point you avoided above). Of course, I have no experience in explosions or detonations, so what I think 'sounds like an explosion' may in fact not sound like a true explosion. It is simply the use of a similie to illustrate the sounds were loud and booming.

Of course, when the firefighters saw the bodies hitting the ground, safe to say they realised what was making the sounds.

But please, keep on disrespecting the dead to support your delusions.

[dtugg]

I don't think that twoofer morons know what a simile is.

[Gytha Ogg]

I don't think that twoofer morons know what a simile is.

I would have thought 8 years was enough time to find a dictionary, but I guess they're too busy.

[bill smith]

Bolding mine. Yes, it could be mistaken for that, just as funk's example of a car crashing through a window initially was by his neighbour (the point you avoided above). Of course, I have no experience in explosions or detonations, so what I think 'sounds like an explosion' may in fact not sound like a true explosion. It is simply the use of a similie to illustrate the sounds were loud and booming.

Of course, when the firefighters saw the bodies hitting the ground, safe to say they realised what was making the sounds.




But please, keep on disrespecting the dead to support your delusions.


What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

[Foolmewunz]

Would you really say that the sound could have been loud enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

Yes, Bill. In fact, you can go back in history and hear the same sort of comment re the Triangle Shirtwaist fire nearly a century earlier. Crowds of people and reporters were there and they reported the same thing, that the bodies hitting the ground seemed to sound like explosions.

[Gytha Ogg]

What about inside he buidings ? Thee are also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Oh dear. I've lurked here for a while, Bill, and I've seen this debunked so many times it's not even funny.

I can't even be bothered to go through and bold all the 'likes' in those quotes above. Google 'similie'.

Anyway, someone heard a shotgun going off. Were the towers brought down by shotguns too?

[AdinDraco]

Would you really say that the sound could have been loud enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

Sure, why not? I've dropped an handful of cutlrey in a sink and people in the next room thought I'd destroyed an appliance or something. Speech in my lounge room can travel down my hall, past 2 rooms (where the words are barely audible) and be heard in my bedroom like they were standing right behind me. I've broken a small branch in half and had a "crack" echo off walls around me loud enough to set my ears to ring and sound like a loud rifle shot.

If people actually tell me that they heard 70 kg of mass hit concrete hard and fast and sound just like a explosion, then I won't argue just because I can't imagine it.

[dtugg]

Hey bill, how about you find one firefighter that agrees with your insane fantasy that the WTC was destroyed using bombs or superdupernanotherm*te or whatever you say it is at the moment. Oh that's right...according to you, the FDNY was in on it. My bad.

[dtugg]

I don't think that twoofer morons know what a simile is.

What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Thanks for proving me correct.

[bill smith]

Some people outside the buildings reported 'KA-BOOM' type explosions

[Gytha Ogg]

Some people outside the buildings reported 'KA-BOOM' type explosions

Have you actually read any of the posts above?

Do you know what a similie is?

[cyclonic]

Would you really say that the sound could have been loud enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

Hear for yourself.

lhLDw7GAjJA

[Gytha Ogg]

Right, I think I understand.

Imagine you're on the plains of Africa. You hear a high pitched chirping sound, which makes you think, very reasonably, 'That sounds like a bird. There must be one around here'. Looking behind a rock, you then see a baby cheetah, which makes a high pitched chirping sound very much like a bird. (Well, I think they do. :D )

Rational person: Oh, it's not a bird, it's a baby cheetah. Silly me. Just sounded like a bird.
Bill/truthers unable to grasp similie: It's still a bird.

Am I in the right ballpark? Rational person is able to alter their initial conclusion as new evidence arises. Truther simply sticks to the conclusion that supports their delusions, no matter how obviously ludicrous (cheetahs are birds).

Hope that made sense.

[JoeyDonuts]

So what is it again? Thermite or explosives?

You can't just leapfrog back and forth between two mutually exclusive theories.

At least have the intellectual honesty to to stick with ONE of them.

Oh wait...The 9/11 truth movement got around this little bit by inventing "sol-gel nanothermite cutter charges."

Bravo. I suppose every good scientific theory needs a deus ex machina, doesn't it?

I refer you to R. Mackey's Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories.

You guys passed the limit some years ago.

[bill smith]

So what is it again? Thermite or explosives?

You can't just leapfrog back and forth between two mutually exclusive theories.

At least have the intellectual honesty to to stick with ONE of them.

Oh wait...The 9/11 truth movement got around this little bit by inventing "sol-gel nanothermite cutter charges."

Bravo. I suppose every good scientific theory needs a deus ex machina, doesn't it?

I refer you to R. Mackey's Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories.

You guys passed the limit some years ago.

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.

[dtugg]

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.

You forgot the giant orbiting laser. How else do you think that we made thousands of tons of steel disappear?

[cyclonic]

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.

Where is the evidence of this thermite and explosives?

[BigAl]

Some people outside the buildings reported 'KA-BOOM' type explosions

Yup. They sounded like a large firework.

Fireworks didn't cause the collapse of the two of the largest buildings in the world.

[Gytha Ogg]

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.

If it's so obvious, I would assume there is mounds of evidence to support it. Is there?

[bill smith]

Where is the evidence of this thermite and explosives?

High explosive does not melt steel thus Thermite.

High explosive throws 4-ton chunks the length of two football fields. Standard Thermite does not.

There is a variety of Thermite that apparently can be nade high-explosive though by adding an advanced polymer to the mix.

[FineWine]

What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study


At what point will you come to terms with the fact that people heard things blowing up and the more significant fact that random explosions are not suggestive of a controlled demolition? Dave Rogers is gamely trying to convey to you the important distinction that people did NOT hear those explosions right before the collapses of the buildings.

[funk de fino]

High explosive does not melt steel thus Thermite.

High explosive throws 4-ton chunks the length of two football fields. Standard Thermite does not.

There is a variety of Thermite that apparently can be nade high-explosive though by adding an advanced polymer to the mix.

Get the tissues!!

[cyclonic]

Lets play spot the shredded/cut column bill, this video was taken 9-12-01 so surely we would have columns showing explosive/thermite cut damage hey bill.

KVnTospdrh8

[FineWine]

some people outside the buildings reported 'ka-boom' type explosions


But ABSOLUTELY NOBODY reported the series of simultaneous blasts that charactrize a controlled demolition.

[BigAl]

What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Like" is a simile. None of these people think man-made demolition caused the collapse.

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

[FineWine]

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.


Obviously, there would be at least a shred of physical evidence for this assertion. There isn't, as you know.

[BigAl]

High explosive does not melt steel thus Thermite.

High explosive throws 4-ton chunks the length of two football fields. Standard Thermite does not.

There is a variety of Thermite that apparently can be nade high-explosive though by adding an advanced polymer to the mix.

Nobody heard explosions consistent with man-made demolition at WTC.

Man-made explosives don't propel beams very well. Not as well as altitude, gravity and a modest initial velocity does.

[ElMondoHummus]

At risk of annoying the moderators and veteran participants, once again, here we go.

Okay, one more time, just because some people insist on taking legitimate testimony and turning it into something it's not:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/proving_controlled_demolition.html
This topic is old and has long been addressed. What people heard were not demolitions. This is established.

Furthermore, you cannot have demolition noises yet lack demolition evidence, such as structural assemblies that have been explosively disintegrated. Once again, all recovered steel shows signs of mechanical, not explosive, distortion. And that's only one of the many pieces of evidence conclusively refuting the notion that explosives were used.


Using testimony from witnesses to propose explosives is useless. Read the links. Understand what they were saying, and what the difference is between hearing loud noises, possible legitimate explosives that had nothing to do with demolition (for example: Electric transformers, which are known to have existed in the towers), and demolitions. The last on this list - demolitions - were never there.

[BigAl]

Would you really say that the sound could have been loud enough to be mistaken for an explosive detonation ?

Yes, if you are inside the North tower when the south tower collapses. That was the case for lots of the quotes from firemen saying "like a bomb" that the Twoofers like to harvest for cherries.

The same thing goes for people that heard one of the planes hit without knowing what it was until later.

[BigAl]

Fow much doubt can there be that there were hundreds of loud explosions given that there re lierally HUNDREDS of reports of them given on 9/11 itself. Listen to hundreds of first responders reporting them.

None of them believe they heard man-made demolition, but then you believe that the firemen were in on it.

[cyclonic]

High explosive does not melt steel thus Thermite.

High explosive throws 4-ton chunks the length of two football fields. Standard Thermite does not.

There is a variety of Thermite that apparently can be nade high-explosive though by adding an advanced polymer to the mix.

There was no molten steel,none.


As the building is collapsing the weight of the debris pushes the columns bending them until the bolts snap then the columns sprang away as they straightened up.
you can simulate this effect at home by using any piece of steel from a 3 inch nail to a 6 foot crowbar, stick one end in a shallow hole or groove, bend it, let it go and watch that sucker fly.
if explosives caused it to fly it would have overwhelming evidence of explosive damage.

[Justin39640]

What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

wow bill just wow
heres 1 example the only one from your list i googled

from: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110168.PDF
ROSARIO TERRANOVA - We remained at that location for a little
while. Chief Basile came in, and he was there. They
began to discuss strategies and what was going to
occur. A couple of times really we were frightened by
what we thought were additional explosions. We kept
hearing these large boom, boom, and actually what it
turned out to be -- what it said in the Times, it
actually was people jumping and hitting on the glass
awning that was outside the lobby there

maybe you should actually read your "evidence" before you post it bill

[Foolmewunz]

Ya know, I was just sitting here thinking what luck it is that they used similes and not metaphors. Imagine how hard it would be to convince the more cement-headed truthers if it was a metaphor without that telltale "like". I mean some of them might go on for pages and pa....

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[JoeyDonuts]

Thermite needs to stay in one place to do its job.

Would simulataneous explosions dislodge it?

And where's the det cord for the explosives?

How were they triggered?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.

Do you have evidence for ANY of this crap?

Dr. Jones in 5...4...3...2...

[ElMondoHummus]

Claiming thermite is also useless:

http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/photosoftorch-cutsteel
Bottom line: No. It was not used. And if anyone wants to try to reargue the Bentham paper by Harrit, Jones, and the others:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4607894#post4607894
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[JoeyDonuts]

Shill! Plant! Traitor! Illuminatus!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What a maroon...

Fow much doubt can there be that there were hundreds of loud explosions given that there re lierally HUNDREDS of reports of them given on 9/11 itself.


If 5 people report hearing the same noise, that's not 5 separate instances of that noise, bill smith.

[TruthersLie]

What about inside he buildings ? There were also dozens or hundreds of reports of explosions and they were dfinately not caused by falling bodies ?

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Canadian Professor 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg Firemen's Testimony- Study

Ah yes... datamined quotes. You really should READ the rest of their statements.

And bill, I have given you a list of 15 to 20 things which are in office buildings which EXPLODE when on fire. I could link you to videos of each of them exploding when on fire...

could ANY of those explosions be from those 15 or 20 things? Yes or no bill?

Can you ELIMINATE ANY of those 15 to 20 things? Can you state with complete knowledge those things couldn't have been on fire and exploded? yes or no bill?

Of course you can't. So since you cannot eliminate any of the common 20 things which explode when on fire, and you cannot point to a single video showing 120 to 160 decibel explosions, and you can only take datamined quotes... it shows that you cannot prove that there were ANY explosives detonations.

try again bill...

[Dave Rogers]

Obviously both thermite and high explosive were used.

And weaponised nanoscale anthrax. Don't forget that.

Dave

[SteveAustin]

I was an eyewitness to some of the events at WTC. When I hear Twoofer claims about what I saw, I know Twoofer lie.

I knew two people that died on 9/11, one in Flt 93 and one in WTC and countless others that were involved to some degree. I know I am not alone in JREF in having these connections to the events of 9/11. I know that no eyewitnesses claim man-made demolition at WTC.

I expect Islamists to try to attack Manhattan again. The "Truth Movement" is part of the problem, not part of the solution as far as trying to prevent that from happening.

I can sleep well knowing that all the death and destruction was caused by 19 Arab Islamists lead by bin Laden. I knew that Islamists were trying to kill me and my friends based on the 1993 bombing. 9/11 was no real surprise except in the scale.

Tell me, how is trying to get a real thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation a problem? Common sense says that it would only be a problem for people hiding the truth, otherwise any sane person would support a new thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation, especially when the family members themselves are calling for one. To deny the family members this is disrespectful to them.

[FineWine]

Tell me, how is trying to get a real thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation a problem? Common sense says that it would only be a problem for people hiding the truth, otherwise any sane person would support a new thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation, especially when the family members themselves are calling for one. To deny the family members this is disrespectful to them.


You and your fellow frauds always run away when I ask who should conduct this new investigation. This time will be no different.

[JoeyDonuts]

You and your fellow frauds always run away when I ask who should conduct this new investigation. This time will be no different.

Exactly. What would give any new investigation more authority than the thorough and comprehensive one that's already been done?

Having Drs. Jones, Griffin, and Wood at the helm, with Craig n' Aldo, PFT, and Jason Bermas doing technical assistance?

Don't make me freaking laugh.

Give me any fifth grade science class in the country, and I'll have more collected scientific ability than that gallery of incompetence.

[SteveAustin]

why is steve commenting on explosions when he hasn't even resolved his '1000 paid" shills claim?


Steve, you have to close out some of your arguments before you can start on another failed attempt at your gross lying.

And the dishonesty continues. No surprise really.

Hey arus why not come over to ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comment s

and help you cult member out of a real jam?

[dtugg]

Tell me, how is trying to get a real thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation a problem? Common sense says that it would only be a problem for people hiding the truth, otherwise any sane person would support a new thorough and truly independent and transparent investigation, especially when the family members themselves are calling for one. To deny the family members this is disrespectful to them.

A new investigation would serve no purpose as the crime was solved years ago. It would be a waste of time, money, and resources and distract from real issues. And how many family members are calling for a new investigation anyway? A few dozen or whatever it is isn't exactly a lot.

[~enigma~]

A new investigation would serve no purpose as the crime was solved years ago. It would be a waste of time, money, and resources and distract from real issues. And how many family members are calling for a new investigation anyway? A few dozen or whatever it is isn't exactly a lot.
Not only that but how many families are there and what is the percentage of them calling for a few non-MIHOP related questions?

[Arus808]

And the dishonesty continues. No surprise really.

Hey arus why not come over to ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comment s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comment s)

and help you cult member out of a real jam?

ah Bill, your the one that continues to LIE. Notice the bolded section of the URL you posted.


Where is the official article (NOT ON a BLOG, not in COMMENTS TO A BLOG).. a CREDIBLE source done by a REAL reporter on these 1000 paid shills.

YOU do know what anonymous comments are, right?
You do know what a BLOG is right?

[SteveAustin]

No such evidence can exist as there are no professional shills. If anybody was willing to pay people to waste time on tiny blogs, the line for applicants would stretch around the globe.

LOL really? No professional shills? Well you would of course have to ignore the link that was already posted, but how about another link on a similar subject...

Web warfare team unveiled: Internet surfers paid to spread Israeli propaganda (http://www.redress.cc/palestine/jcook20090722)

Seems you really are living in a fantasy world finewine, as the US government is not the only that hires people to blog for them. If you really want to continue with your dishonesty I can get more of these for you, but better we do it over at ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comment s where we can have a real discussion without being flooded with irrelevant crap, besides which carlito is floundering over there and really needs the help.

[JoeyDonuts]

You're getting real close to SPAM territory.

Just sayin'.

[dtugg]

ah Bill, your the one that continues to LIE. Notice the bolded section of the URL you posted.


Where is the official article (NOT ON a BLOG, not in COMMENTS TO A BLOG).. a CREDIBLE source done by a REAL reporter on these 1000 paid shills.

YOU do know what anonymous comments are, right?
You do know what a BLOG is right?

Actually, he has been trying really hard to get us all to go debate him over in the comment section of some BBC blog post. It's really pathetic.

And he is, of course, lying about the thousand paid shills thing. He claims that some story linked back here somewhere supports his insane claim, but it doesn't.

[A W Smith]

LOL really? No professional shills? Well you would of course have to ignore the link that was already posted, but how about another link on a similar subject...

Web warfare team unveiled: Internet surfers paid to spread Israeli propaganda (http://www.redress.cc/palestine/jcook20090722)

Seems you really are living in a fantasy world finewine, as the US government is not the only that hires people to blog for them. If you really want to continue with your dishonesty I can get more of these for you, but better we do it over at ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7#comment s where we can have a real discussion without being flooded with irrelevant crap, besides which carlito is floundering over there and really needs the help.


from your link Steve-0

to spread positive news about Israel on the web, with the BBC News website and Arabic websites high on its target list.The BBC web site? The same web site you are begging us to follow you to? are you Canadian or in reality Jewish Steve-0?

[SteveAustin]

Bill, how long are you going to maintain your mind-bogglingly stupid take on this? If there were hundreds of reports of explosions, then there were exposions or sounds very much like explosions. If the explosions don't show up on the videos, then they took place at different times and/or places than the times and places that he videos were recorded. If they were at different times, they weren't at the right time to be the cause of the building collapses. If they were at the same times but in different places, then they weren't loud enough to be picked up everywhere in downtown Manhattan, so they weren't big enough to be the cause of the building collapses. Therefore, with absolute certainty, they weren't the cause of the building collapses.

This doesn't require a three-digit IQ to grasp.

Dave

If there were explosions "that took place at different times and/or places than the times and places that he videos were recorded"

If "If they were at different times, they weren't at the right time to be the cause of the building collapses. If they were at the same times but in different places, then they weren't loud enough to be picked up everywhere in downtown Manhattan, so they weren't big enough to be the cause of the building collapses. Therefore, with absolute certainty, they weren't the cause of the building collapses."

Then there were explosions elsewhere that need to be investigated and were not investigated, whether they were responsible for the buildings' collapses or not.

This doesn't require a three-digit IQ to grasp.

[JoeyDonuts]

This doesn't require a three-digit IQ to grasp.

Sure doesn't.

Any idea how many things are pressurized in a modern office building?

[SteveAustin]

Where is the evidence of this thermite and explosives?

It's in the hands of NIST/EPA/etc... but they refuse to test for explosives or send their dust samples to a 3rd truly independent team to test and solve the conflict between the findings of Harrit/Jones/et all and the non-findings of NIST/et all

[BigAl]

Then there were explosions elsewhere that need to be investigated and were not investigated, whether they were responsible for the buildings' collapses or not.

This doesn't require a three-digit IQ to grasp.

There were no explosions that were consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

[SteveAustin]

Obviously, there would be at least a shred of physical evidence for this assertion. There isn't, as you know.

But there is and you know it. You just keep refusing to admit it and simply attack the people themselves and the publisher and refuse to have your cult's "findings" peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal

[JoeyDonuts]

It's in the hands of NIST/EPA/etc...

And you know this HOW?

but they refuse to test for explosives or send their dust samples to a 3rd truly independent team

They didn't test for explosives because the sequence of events didn't present any indications that explosives had been used. When the police respond to a shooting and find the victim, they don't waste time looking for a 9 iron.

conflict between the findings of Harrit/Jones/et all and the non-findings of NIST/et all

You see, NIST has the luxury of not having made theirs up, or inferring the presence of materials that weren't there.

So solly. Fortune cookie?

[SteveAustin]

There was no molten steel,none.

Eyes Wide Shut (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM)

[SteveAustin]

You and your fellow frauds always run away when I ask who should conduct this new investigation. This time will be no different.

Oh yes, that tactic.

Tell me, how does my not responding, or not having anyone specific in mind invalidate the fact that a new investigation is needed?

Answer is it does not, your answers was simply a dodge and a distraction.

[dtugg]

I find it hilariously pathetic that a twoofer is begging people to follow him around the Internet to the comments section of some random blog post.

[SteveAustin]

Exactly. What would give any new investigation more authority than the thorough and comprehensive one that's already been done?

Having Drs. Jones, Griffin, and Wood at the helm, with Craig n' Aldo, PFT, and Jason Bermas doing technical assistance?

Don't make me freaking laugh.

Give me any fifth grade science class in the country, and I'll have more collected scientific ability than that gallery of incompetence.

The more you JREF cult members talk the more you show yourselves to be frauds using fraudulent debating tactics

[dtugg]

Oh yes, that tactic.

Tell me, how does my not responding, or not having anyone specific in mind invalidate the fact that a new investigation is needed?

Answer is it does not, your answers was simply a dodge and a distraction.

And surprise, surprise, the twoofer can't answer the question.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by cyclonic View Post
There was no molten steel,none.

Eyes Wide Shut (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM)

There is no known science that would explain the temperatures necessary to maintain molten steel on the pile.

There is nobody that says "I saw molten steel" or anything equivalent. It's all second hand and/or or metaphorical. An estimated 7,000 people worked on the pile and only a tiny number of people pass on second-hand stories.

There is no physical evidence of molten steel found on the pile. None.

Given the lack of science and the absence of physical evidence, second hand stories count for nothing.

[Grizzly Bear]

I find it hilariously pathetic that a twoofer is begging people to follow him around the Internet to the comments section of some random blog post.

Not sure why he joined here if he doesn't have any intention of making a real point here. I even offered to talk to him privately and made it permissible for him to share the contents of the discussion publicly if he was concerned with the relatively hostile stance people take with truthers, but it seems he's even refused that.

This is not a site to advertise you're favorite hang out with forum plugs... and if he refuses to live up to his burden of proof where he joined that's his problem. Until he actually makes his points I don't see where he justifies a response anymore.

[JoeyDonuts]

The more you JREF cult members talk the more you show yourselves to be frauds using fraudulent debating tactics

How am I a fraud? Back this one up.

[alienentity]

There is no known science that would explain the temperatures necessary to maintain molten steel on the pile.

There is nobody that says "I saw molten steel" or anything equivalent. It's all second hand and/or or metaphorical. An estimated 7,000 people worked on the pile and only a tiny number of people pass on second-hand stories.

There is no physical evidence of molten steel found on the pile. None.

Given the lack of science and the absence of physical evidence, second hand stories count for nothing.

Reports of molten steel are in the same catagory as reports of alien abductions and bigfoot sightings.

[JoeyDonuts]

I don't know this one off hand, but were the fires at a temperature higher than about 1300 F?

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't know this one off hand, but were the fires at a temperature higher than about 1300 F?

1300 F would be a minimum... the values I've seen consistently used are in centigrade ranging from 600oC (~1100oF) to 1000oC (~1800oF).

[SteveAustin]

Will there be a "real" discussion with ignorant, dishonest mental-defectives who are recycling discredited garbage from 2004? I'll pass. Pretending that the PNAC document "calls for" a new Pearl Harbor may work in the schoolyard. It's pretty pathetic when dealing with people who have actually read it. Maybe I should spend a few hours on Marvin Bush or "pull it"?
Thanks, but no thanks.

Of course you will pass, no surprise there.

You are perfectly willing to discuss these exact same things her on JREF but are completely unwilling to do so at a location that is not controlled by "debunkers".

Now that is very illuminating is it not lurkers?

[JoeyDonuts]

Aluminum melts around that temperature does it not?

There was a ****-ton of aluminum in the WTC.

The molten flows people reported witnessing could easily be molten aluminum from the cladding, etc.

[SteveAustin]

And you know this HOW?

Are you saying that this supposedely "thorough" investigation does not have any dust samples?

They didn't test for explosives because the sequence of events didn't present any indications that explosives had been used. When the police respond to a shooting and find the victim, they don't waste time looking for a 9 iron.

A thorough investigation is not supposed to be based on beliefs. There's a reason why it's standard procedure to test for explosions in these types of circumstances even if there were no "evidence" of such.

You see, NIST has the luxury of not having made theirs up, or inferring the presence of materials that weren't there.


They also had the luxury of making excuses to not follow standard procedure in these situations. Is that what you call thorough?

[Myriad]

And there's more to it than lack of first-hand witness statements ("I saw melted steel; I was standing [describe location] and looking at [describe direction/position] when I saw it"). If there were significant quantities of melted steel, hard evidence should also be ample after the fact.

Blobs of steel that solidified on other pieces of steel after flowing onto them and cooling.

Flow-formed masses of steel from puddles of melted steel on the concrete bathtub floor after cooling. With or without inclusions of other debris. (Something like the "meteor," perhaps, except with melted steel instead of obviously unmelted steel in them.)

Ends of steel column pieces that were left smooth and rounded (NOT sharp and jagged!) by melting.

None of these found = no melted steel in more than negligible quantity, most likely none at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JoeyDonuts]

Are you saying that this supposedely "thorough" investigation does not have any dust samples?

In your world, does this qualify as an "answer?"

[Grizzly Bear]

Aluminum melts around that temperature does it not?

There was a ****-ton of aluminum in the WTC.

The molten flows people reported witnessing could easily be molten aluminum from the cladding, etc.
660oC and it made up all of the external cladding on both buildings, vehicles on the ground also have aluminum based components. The reports may have referred either to that, or the temperature color indications, since many materials, especially metals radiate visible color indications of their temperatures. But someone who's neither familiar with the materials used in the towers, nor those without expertise in metallurgy can be explicitly expected to definitively distinguish any metal. The long term high temperature are also proof positive that no incendiary could have possibly been responsible for what was observed in the debris pile. Conspiracy theorists just like to bloat it up.

[SteveAustin]

I find it hilariously pathetic that a twoofer is begging people to follow him around the Internet to the comments section of some random blog post.

Well then look at it this way dtugg, this would be a perfect oportunity for you to show me up in front of many many times more people than come here to JREF. It is the BBC after all...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk

Now in the box below the graph enter http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 and click compare.

You will notice that your little sub-forum on JREF does not even register as 0.001% on the scale. Check out the other tabs as well to see the comparisons on other stats.

So you could literally show me up in front of exponentially more people over at the BBC blog than you can here!

Isn't that incentive enough for you?

I can guess your response arleady, you will make up some other excuse to not come over!

You are so predictable

[JoeyDonuts]

The long term high temperature are also proof positive that no incendiary could have possibly been responsible for what was observed in the debris pile. Conspiracy theorists just like to bloat it up.

Since I'm not a metallurgist, would you mind explaining how long-term high temperatures prove the lack of incendiary agent?

[Grizzly Bear]

Well then look at it this way...
If you dislike the forum environment so much, the log out button is located at the top right. Or if you prefer a shortcut Click here (http://forums.randi.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1249667943-2e1a1267ef89a21fcf2932c59a7c51a0d5c3e963)

Problem solved :)

[SteveAustin]

And surprise, surprise, the twoofer can't answer the question.

LOL actually I did answer, and my answer was also a question at the same time...here let me repeat it for you because I know from experience you JREF cult members have a hard time comprehending these things unless they are repeated at least 2 dozen times...

how does my not responding, or not having anyone specific in mind invalidate the fact that a new investigation is needed?

But in your response you refused to answer my question.

Now isn't that ironic. dtugg accused me of not answering (which is a lie because I did) and he himself did not answer my question!

ROFL

[Grizzly Bear]

Since I'm not a metallurgist, would you mind explaining how long-term high temperatures prove the lack of incendiary agent?

The molten metal testimony ranges in dates from a few days after the collapse, to several months. Thermite simply doesn't burn that long, certainly not days let alone months. The only heat source that had any chance of lasting that long were the debris pile fires which continued burning during the onset of cleanup operations. If you put it into perspective myth Buster's car melt experiment lasted less than an hour on 2000 pounds of thermite...

[T.A.M.]

Steven Jones and his associates have made the extraordinary claim that THEIR dust samples, allegedly from the WTC site, contain exothermic material which they have concluded is thermite.

As a result, Steve Austin, the burden of proof is on them. In order to prove that their results are valid, they must be REPRODUCED by an INDEPENDENT 3rd party. Given that other samples from WTC have not been shown to have such material, Jones' results are in question until his work (yes, with HIS SAMPLES) is proven repeatable by an independent 3rd party.

The unfortunate part of all this, is because he took no care to develop a sound chain of custody for all of his samples, even if his samples were examined independently, and concluded to have such materials in them, the results would be in question.

BAD SCIENCE ALL AROUND.

Please tell me you are smart enough to understand this Steve.

TAM:)

[SteveAustin]

If you dislike the forum environment so much, the log out button is located at the top right. Or if you prefer a shortcut Click here (http://forums.randi.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1249667943-2e1a1267ef89a21fcf2932c59a7c51a0d5c3e963)

Problem solved :)

LOL I notice how very hard everyone is trying to get me to stop posting here.

ROFL, I must be doing something right.

Tell you what, you have an ignore button, add me to it, and don't just pretend to do so like TAM did but really do it.

Then I can make my case without the constant insertion of mindless and fraudulent "debunking" tactics. Heck I might be left actually having a real discussion with someone here if enough of you do this!

[Arus808]

If you put it into perspective myth Buster's car melt experiment lasted less than an hour on 2000 pounds of thermite...


and failed miserably to do what the MB guys wanted to do; cut a car in half.

[FineWine]

I've been trying to, but you all (with the exception of poor little carlito) have refused to leave the safe walls of JREF and come over and have a real discussion on the topic.

You all seem to think that you fraudulent debate techniques actually constitutes real debating. Or maybe you all realize that it does not, which is why none of you will ever leave the safe confines of JREF


You have demonstrated that you know very little about formal rhetoric. Drop the pose and make a simple statement along these lines: the "truth" movement has shown that this specific aspect of the mainstream account is invalid. In other words, stop vaporizing and SAY SOMETHING.

[Arus808]

LOL I notice how very hard everyone is trying to get me to stop posting here.

No, we are assuming that yOU do not want to continue discussions here because YOU want us to follow to a BLOG post on BBC dated from date years ago, in the COMMENTS section.

sorry, but we are not your pet dogs that you can lead around on a leash.

IF you do not like participating here, then its very simple, JUST leave.


ETA: You still have yet to provide a link to the article (NOT COMMENTS< NOT A BLOG post) and ARTICLE posted online by a cREDIble report for a CREDIBLE reporting site, about those 1000 paid shills

[SteveAustin]

Steven Jones and his associates have made the extraordinary claim that THEIR dust samples, allegedly from the WTC site, contain exothermic material which they have concluded is thermite.

As a result, Steve Austin, the burden of proof is on them. In order to prove that their results are valid, they must be REPRODUCED by an INDEPENDENT 3rd party. Given that other samples from WTC have not been shown to have such material, Jones' results are in question until his work (yes, with HIS SAMPLES) is proven repeatable by an independent 3rd party.

The unfortunate part of all this, is because he took no care to develop a sound chain of custody for all of his samples, even if his samples were examined independently, and concluded to have such materials in them, the results would be in question.

BAD SCIENCE ALL AROUND.

Please tell me you are smart enough to understand this Steve.

TAM:)

TAM quit behind dishonest here. Harrit and Jones have proven their conclusions. It is up to those who do not believe Harrit and Jones to prove them wrong, the burden of proof is on "debunkers" to prove them wrong.

And they do not need Harrit and Jones dust samples to do so as NIST/EPA/FEMA/etc... have dust samples of their own they can send to an independent 3rd party.

It's not up to Harrit and Jones to do the work for the "debunkers" to debunk Harrit and Jones

[Arus808]

TAM quit behind dishonest here.
the problem is that HE isn't.


Harrit and Jones have proven their conclusions. It is up to those who do not believe Harrit and Jones to prove them wrong, the burden of proof is on "debunkers" to prove them wrong.

No they haven't. the problem here is they have not provided any proof of hteir claims. Please provide a link to their PEER REVIEWED findings in a REPUTABLE published journal

[T.A.M.]

LOL I notice how very hard everyone is trying to get me to stop posting here.

ROFL, I must be doing something right.

Tell you what, you have an ignore button, add me to it, and don't just pretend to do so like TAM did but really do it.

Then I can make my case without the constant insertion of mindless and fraudulent "debunking" tactics. Heck I might be left actually having a real discussion with someone here if enough of you do this!

On the contrary, I hope you stick around. You are a wonderful example of what is left of the active truth movement. Carry on ignoring the evidence. Carry on defending poor science. Carry on treating speculation as fact, and opinion as evidence.

What others are tell you, is if you hate this place so much that you must constantly bitch and whine about it, then you know where the door is...simple enough.

As for me having you on ignore, you are. There is an option to read a given post by anyone at anytime who is on your ignore list. Check it...go ahead. Like I said, I put you on ignore because your posts, at the time, were almost exclusively free of relevant content, and consisting almost exclusively of "debate tactic discussion". If you continue to refrain from it, I will likely take you off ignore until you do something else stupid.

TAM:)

[dtugg]

Well then look at it this way dtugg, this would be a perfect oportunity for you to show me up in front of many many times more people than come here to JREF. It is the BBC after all...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk

Now in the box below the graph enter http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 and click compare.

You will notice that your little sub-forum on JREF does not even register as 0.001% on the scale. Check out the other tabs as well to see the comparisons on other stats.

So you could literally show me up in front of exponentially more people over at the BBC blog than you can here!

Isn't that incentive enough for you?

I can guess your response arleady, you will make up some other excuse to not come over!

You are so predictable

Wow. This is just too funny! I can hardly contain myself.

You're actually comparing this subforum to the entire BBC website!?!?!?!? And you think that proves more people read the comment section of that random blog post than do posts here!?!?!?!?!? Really????????

Well, the above was only in jest. I know that you are actually trying to make twoofers look bad. You really do a much better job of it than any debunker could ever hope to.

[dtugg]

LOL actually I did answer, and my answer was also a question at the same time...here let me repeat it for you because I know from experience you JREF cult members have a hard time comprehending these things unless they are repeated at least 2 dozen times...



But in your response you refused to answer my question.

Now isn't that ironic. dtugg accused me of not answering (which is a lie because I did) and he himself did not answer my question!

ROFL


It seems as though you are pretending not to know what the word "answer" means in order to make twoofers look bad.

And BTW, I explained why already explained why a new investigation is not neccesary and would be counter-productive.

[T.A.M.]

TAM quit behind dishonest here. Harrit and Jones have proven their conclusions. It is up to those who do not believe Harrit and Jones to prove them wrong, the burden of proof is on "debunkers" to prove them wrong.

And they do not need Harrit and Jones dust samples to do so as NIST/EPA/FEMA/etc... have dust samples of their own they can send to an independent 3rd party.

It's not up to Harrit and Jones to do the work for the "debunkers" to debunk Harrit and Jones

No they have not. They have made an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of the accepted. They have not had said extraordinary claim verified through repeatability by an independent 3rd party. You are obviously not a scientist, and have no clue how it works. Not surprised.

The EPA samples were analyzed, and thermite is not listed in the list of dust contents. As a result, in order to validate the claims made by Jones, his samples must be analyzed.

Are you really that thick headed????? This isn't hard you know.

As I said before though. Don't leave. You are a great example for any lurkers that might be lurking.

TAM:)

[SteveAustin]

No, we are assuming that yOU do not want to continue discussions here because YOU want us to follow to a BLOG post on BBC dated from date years ago, in the COMMENTS section.

sorry, but we are not your pet dogs that you can lead around on a leash.

IF you do not like participating here, then its very simple, JUST leave.


ETA: You still have yet to provide a link to the article (NOT COMMENTS< NOT A BLOG post) and ARTICLE posted online by a cREDIble report for a CREDIBLE reporting site, about those 1000 paid shills

Ah yes, the move the goalpost. And this was pointed out several times already, but as already noted JREF "debunkers" seem to need things repeated to them 2 dozen times for them to see it.

You all asked for a link to back up what I was saying. The link was provided. Then all the JREF cult members decided to interpret the article in a way that they could claim it does not say what it really says and then to further their dishonest are now claiming that because they say the article that was linked is not "credible" based on their interpretation that I am still lying and still avoiding this.

ROFL, does anyone really fall for this?

Not in the real world. Which is why none of you will leave the safe confines of JREF and come have a real discussion on these topics.

[Grizzly Bear]

LOL I notice how very hard everyone is trying to get me to stop posting here.
It may be news to you, but nobodies' got the authority to stop you from posting here. But you seem to dislike posting your arguments here, instead choosing to plug websites like an advertising bot, so I only suggested an alternative option for you. You're free to take or leave it, I don't really care :)

Heck I might be left actually having a real discussion with someone here if enough of you do this!
What discussion? If I don't like the place I'm posting at and have nothing to offer to the people on the forum I don't join it and I don't waste their time. If I feel I can discuss anything with their members I'll join their forum directly. But I will not pressure them to join any external website by spamming the living hell out of their forum with ads.

[dtugg]

Ah yes, the move the goalpost. And this was pointed out several times already, but as already noted JREF "debunkers" seem to need things repeated to them 2 dozen times for them to see it.

You all asked for a link to back up what I was saying. The link was provided. Then all the JREF cult members decided to interpret the article in a way that they could claim it does not say what it really says and then to further their dishonest are now claiming that because they say the article that was linked is not "credible" based on their interpretation that I am still lying and still avoiding this.

ROFL, does anyone really fall for this?

Not in the real world. Which is why none of you will leave the safe confines of JREF and come have a real discussion on these topics.

The link did nothing to support your insane claim, liar.

[Myriad]

Well then look at it this way dtugg, this would be a perfect oportunity for you to show me up in front of many many times more people than come here to JREF. It is the BBC after all...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk

Now in the box below the graph enter http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 and click compare.

You will notice that your little sub-forum on JREF does not even register as 0.001% on the scale. Check out the other tabs as well to see the comparisons on other stats.

So you could literally show me up in front of exponentially more people over at the BBC blog than you can here!

Isn't that incentive enough for you?

I can guess your response arleady, you will make up some other excuse to not come over!

You are so predictable


But if we are to choose our venue based on Internet popularity, then shouldn't we also choose our topic on the same basis?

I suggest Susan Boyle, since "Susan Boyle" gets more than 35 times as many hits on Google as "9/11 Truth."

Not in this thread, of course, since it would be off topic here. But I'll go to any forum you choose, to discuss Susan Boyle with you. Agreed?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[T.A.M.]

Here is an easy example for you Steve...

There has never been any proof of a signal sent to us from extraterrestrials.

Now if Astronomer Steve Austin declares that he has discovered an extra terrestrial signal, and presents his signals in a paper, do you think that is sufficient?

NOPE.

The signal would have to be VERIFIED by other Astronomers elsewhere on earth, picking up the same signal, and also confirming that it is from an extra terrestrial source.

Compare this to Steven Jones (I'll give you a hint, the thermite in the samples, are the same as the ET signal from space).

TAM:)

[FineWine]

Oh yes, that tactic.

Tell me, how does my not responding, or not having anyone specific in mind invalidate the fact that a new investigation is needed?

Answer is it does not, your answers was simply a dodge and a distraction.


Please don't attempt to answer for me: you're simply not bright enough. Your unwillingness--indeed, the unwillingness of every "truther"--to explain who should conduct the new investigation lets the cat out of the bag. You understand perfectly well that if you use real structural engineers, physicists, metallurgists, fire safety experts, demolition professionals, avionics techs, air traffic controllers, forensic examiners, and firefighters, you will simply replicate the results of the original investigation. You have absolutely no interest in findings based on real science and actual evidence. You have an agenda to flog, and you sure as hell won't let facts get in the way. Your insane movement has never produced a shred of evidence for its baseless, wildly implausible claims, nor has it successfully challenged any parts of the mainstream account. No new investigation is needed. You're looking for a magic wand that will make your imaginary conspiracy real. You won't find one.

[T.A.M.]

Here is a list of who I think the average truther wants on the new investigation committee.

1. Ron Paul
2. Cynthia McKinney
3. David Ray Griffin
4. Richard Gage
5. Steven Jones
6. Jim Hoffman
7-12. Fill in with half a dozen other nutty professors and bitter insane ex military/politician/intelligence people.

TAM:)

[Arus808]

Ah yes, the move the goalpost.


Again you do know what this statement means
No goal posts have been moved here, ONLY you have been doing that back breaking job.


And this was pointed out several times already, but as already noted JREF "debunkers" seem to need things repeated to them 2 dozen times for them to see it.
No, it was clear what was asked of you; till this date YOU have not provided any proof of your claims



You all asked for a link to back up what I was saying. The link was provided. Then all the JREF cult members decided to interpret the article in a way that they could claim it does not say what it really says and then to further their dishonest are now claiming that because they say the article that was linked is not "credible" based on their interpretation that I am still lying and still avoiding this.NO, what was asked of you is a link to the ARTICLE wherey ou claim this "1000 shills" claim came from.

YOU posted a link to the COMMENTS (by anonymous posters) to a BLOG posted (posteD YEARS ago). THAT is not an article, that is not CREDIBLE.

Again, A BLOG is not an ARTICLe. its an OPINION piece, equivalent to an EDITORIAL.

COMMENTS TO an opinion piece are NOT articles.

YOU seriously need to learn what you are talking about

[T.A.M.]

NO, what was asked of you is a link to the ARTICLE wherey ou claim this "1000 shills" claim came from.

YOU posted a link to the COMMENTS (by anonymous posters) to a BLOG article (posteD YEARS ago). THAT is not an article, that is not CREDIBLE.

Again, A BLOG is not an ARTICLe. its an OPINION piece, equivalent to an EDITORIAL.

COMMENTS TO an opinion piece are NOT articles.

YOU seriously need to learn what you are talking about

Well for the record, I am stating now that 100% of truthers are actually disinfo agents.

So Arus, and others, feel free to link to this post on a forum as proof that 100% of truthers are disinfo. I mean here it is, a post by someone on a forum...that's all you need...go to it.

TAM:D

[dtugg]

Arus, FYI, this is the article (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4878.shtml) that Steve says supports his claim that 1000 shills were hired in 2001 to spout the OCT on the Internet. He is a liar, of course.

[Arus808]

Arus, FYI, this is the article (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4878.shtml) that Steve says supports his claim that 1000 shills were hired in 2001 to spout the OCT on the Internet. He is a liar, of course.

and that wasn't even posted by him. it was provided by another poster here; of course anyone with a 5th grade reading comprehension level, could see that it doesn't say what he claims.


So, now its up to Steve Austin to provide the article that proves his claims. and linking to a comment section on a blog does in no way support this.

[Myriad]

I'm really disappointed that the article revealing the hiring of 1000 Internet shills is not forthcoming.

If 1000 got hired, surely there must be some turnover, and it sounds like a job that I am very well qualified for. I'd love to know whom to contact about getting this job.

Unfortunately, the Madsen article refers to a group that "is reportedly primarily tasked with plugging any leaks of classified or other information that points to U.S. government’s involvement with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." I don't know anything about plugging classified information leaks (though I have completed a few home improvement plumbing projects some of which required the repair of leaks), so that job I'd be neither interested in nor qualified for.

So please, show me the real article so that I can find out who's hiring people to argue the rational skeptical position on the Internet. My application is ready, I just need the contact info.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Longfellow]

Re: 'The Status of 9-11 Conspiracy'.

I submit that when members of said conspiracy have to resort to calling rationalists* words such as 'shills' and 'paid', than said members have definitively proven themselves to be inane (absurd, harebrained, ridiculous, daft, take your pick) and not worthy of any debate.

I also submit that when members of said conspiracy display a propensity for truncating witness statements rather than viewing them in their entirety (ie quote-mining/cherry-picking those bits that they think further their cause) they have positively proven their conspiracy to be deceitful and not worthy of any consideration.

The '9/11 truth movement' has shown itself to be made up of charlatans and the willfully ignorant and therefore not worthy of scrutiny.

Well there's yer status- [/Adam Savage Mode]


*-Rationalist are those who see the 11 September, 2001 attack exactly for what is was -- 19 religious extremists hijacked 4 passenger jets with the intent to commit mass murder.

[twinstead]

That's okay. For all the bluff and bluster of the "truth" movement, especially the comical misplaced arrogance that folks like SteveAustin exhibit, our personal revenge will be their continued impotence. They are wrong, but refuse to admit it. So, we will let time convince them.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If SteveAustin really wanted to have a discussion here, he would just have it. He would simply ignore the posts or parts of posts that he perceives as "attacks" and respond to the posts or parts of posts he perceives as a legitimate part of the discussion.

Instead, he does exactly the opposite.

He would clearly rather cry about not having a discussion than make an effort, for his part, to actually have one.

[Magenta]

If SteveAustin really wanted to have a discussion here, he would just have it. He would simply ignore the posts or parts of posts that he perceives as "attacks" and respond to the posts or parts of posts he perceives as a legitimate part of the discussion.

Instead, he does exactly the opposite.

He would clearly rather cry about not having a discussion than make an effort, for his part, to actually have one.


Most truthers who post prolifically are trolling and/or clueless, IMO. The number of responses they get is disproportionate to the attention they actually deserve, but it does enable them to pick and choose what they respond to i.e. ignore substantive posts and engage in a bickerfest.

[A W Smith]

Well then look at it this way dtugg, this would be a perfect oportunity for you to show me up in front of many many times more people than come here to JREF. It is the BBC after all...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/bbc.co.uk

Now in the box below the graph enter http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64 and click compare.

You will notice that your little sub-forum on JREF does not even register as 0.001% on the scale. Check out the other tabs as well to see the comparisons on other stats.

So you could literally show me up in front of exponentially more people over at the BBC blog than you can here!

Isn't that incentive enough for you?

I can guess your response arleady, you will make up some other excuse to not come over!

You are so predictable

You are comparing traffic for the entirety of the BBC site to a sub forum at the jref? are you that stupid? Do you even realize you were posting on the comment string of a blog? go ahead genius. start a new thread over there. Id like to see you do that.
:dl:

[Foolmewunz]

You are comparing traffic for the entirety of the BBC site to a sub forum at the jref? are you that stupid? Do you even realize you were posting on the comment string of a blog? go ahead genius. start a new thread over there. Id like to see you do that.
:dl:

That's really what it's all about for Steve. Steve thinks he's famous because he and his four or five party-mates have continued their back-slapping self-congratulatory "blog" for so long. He actually believes that all the people who go to the BBC for "news" are looking into his thread and that he could stand up in The White Swan in Ealing-on-Armpit and announce that he's THE Steve Austin from the BBC blog and everyone will go, "Oooh, blimey the famous Canadian wall of post, guy? Wow!"

He doesn't want people from here to go over there and debate. He wants people, any people, to go over and see what a famous conspiradroid he's become.

Pathetic. That whole thread is pathetic, in fact. They post opinions and youtubes and cite Jones/Harrit as though it's real Science with an upper case S. Hell, one of them even told Carlito that that's what he's there for to read the science that supporters of the OCT seem to hold in disdain.... As though YouTube and Wayne Madsen and Steven Jones are credible scientific sources.

And there are no debunkers there because no skeptics/sceptics pay it no never mind. It's eight months' worth of hyper flatulence.

It's a fantasy thread, Steve. A bunch of politically driven ideologues telling themselves how smart they are. Hell, there's about a twenty post string discussing Madsen as though he was a real source. And we've chopped that nonsense up and fed it to you in small enough bites that even you might be able to understand. He ain't a reporter. He don't cite no sources. He makes **** up to pander to you conspiradroids.

Post edited for breach of Rule 10.

[carlitos]

Foolmewunz is right, of course, but it's kind of like a cat playing with a bug. I have never done anything like this before. (Obviously, except my paid government 'shill' job!)

[TruthersLie]

Aluminum melts around that temperature does it not?

There was a ****-ton of aluminum in the WTC.

The molten flows people reported witnessing could easily be molten aluminum from the cladding, etc.

Joey.

There are a dozen metals which are used in office builidngs which melt under those temperatures.

They include
aluminum, antimony, bronze, brass, copper, gold (those two are at about 1100C so a bit high), lead, magnesium, silver, tin, zinc
http://www.muggyweld.com/melting.html
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

Any of those could be the "molten" metals...

[TruthersLie]

Reports of molten steel are in the same catagory as reports of alien abductions and bigfoot sightings.

No AE. Those things are real, whereas molten steel exists only in the ravings of ignorant illiterate twoofs.

:)

[Arus808]

I just want to bring to attention that its been 5 days since the last post and Stevie-boy has yet to provide a link to the Article about those 1000 paid shills

[Lupie]

Well,

After searching in vain for a pulse somewhere, anywhere on the net, I have to say that the patient (9/11 Conspiracy Groups) has expired, if it was even alive to begin with. It looks like the more "mainstream/semi-profitable" troofer websites have given up on the economical viability of their sales pitch-"9/11 Was an Inside Job",and are now temporarily backing the "birthers". Why do we even need nicknames for these frauds? We should just call them the "We'll latch onto anything that will take money from others for our own personal gain, and will give us (very) temporary fame" group.

CIT, LCF, (Non) Pilots for .. whatever they are for...

They are all tumbleweed central. CIT would have almost no daily hits at all if it wasn't for the angry Aldo, and his friend, padding the numbers with their own angry responses to their own, already angry, profane posts. Pissed off irrational people who get really pissed off, and irrational in response to their own threads, are, well, entertaining for awhile I suppose. But, once the novelty wears off, and the idiotic nature of it all sets in, these people are left arguing with themselves.

Their status? I would not even call them has-beens. To be considered a Has-Been, requires that you at some point, achieved something. I would argue that troofers belong to the very small, and sad group who are below the level of has-been. They, are a group that "never was".

L.

[BigAl]

Well,

After searching in vain for a pulse somewhere, anywhere on the net, I have to say that the patient (9/11 Conspiracy Groups) has expired, if it was even alive to begin with. It looks like the more "mainstream/semi-profitable" troofer websites have given up on the economical viability of their sales pitch-"9/11 Was an Inside Job",and are now temporarily backing the "birthers". Why do we even need nicknames for these frauds? We should just call them the "We'll latch onto anything that will take money from others for our own personal gain, and will give us (very) temporary fame" group.

CIT, LCF, (Non) Pilots for .. whatever they are for...

They are all tumbleweed central. CIT would have almost no daily hits at all if it wasn't for the angry Aldo, and his friend, padding the numbers with their own angry responses to their own, already angry, profane posts. Pissed off irrational people who get really pissed off, and irrational in response to their own threads, are, well, entertaining for awhile I suppose. But, once the novelty wears off, and the idiotic nature of it all sets in, these people are left arguing with themselves.


The several USENET groups I watch are almost 9/11-free. There is one probable-Muslim that is still trying to prove that 19 Islamists are innocent and posts boilerplate articles regularly but nobody responds to him. Someone else posts the NYCCAN news. I respond to that with a pointer to the City Clerk's letter.

[Justin39640]

The several USENET groups I watch are almost 9/11-free. There is one probable-Muslim that is still trying to prove that 19 Islamists are innocent and posts boilerplate articles regularly but nobody responds to him. Someone else posts the NYCCAN news. I respond to that with a pointer to the City Clerk's letter.

i have a feeling youtube comments will be their last refuge lol

[carlitos]

Don't forget the comments to that BBC editoria (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=8#comment s)l. 3,500+ comments, and still going strong! :)

[Scott Sommers]

I been reading comments left on Youtube TM videos and there really seems to be genuine belief this is mainstream scholarship now and that only a few hacks still resist the message. If I was to believe the crap I see, you'd have to think that WTC controlled demolition was making its way in to the latest civil engineering text books. And that outside of the NIST report 'everyone' knows this is what happened.

I increasingly get the feeling this is the white-collar version of Creation Science. These are people who know nothing about science or the idea of an academic concensus. And despite how easily they discard any disagreement as conspiracy, they desperately cling to anyone with a degree who will validate them (except Judy Wood).

[JihadJane]

I been reading comments left on Youtube TM videos and there really seems to be genuine belief this is mainstream scholarship now and that only a few hacks still resist the message. If I was to believe the crap I see, you'd have to think that WTC controlled demolition was making its way in to the latest civil engineering text books. And that outside of the NIST report 'everyone' knows this is what happened.

I increasingly get the feeling this is the white-collar version of Creation Science. These are people who know nothing about science or the idea of an academic concensus. And despite how easily they discard any disagreement as conspiracy, they desperately cling to anyone with a degree who will validate them (except Judy Wood).


Still playing naive, scott.in.taiwan?

[ElMondoHummus]

I been reading comments left on Youtube TM videos and there really seems to be genuine belief this is mainstream scholarship now and that only a few hacks still resist the message. If I was to believe the crap I see, you'd have to think that WTC controlled demolition was making its way in to the latest civil engineering text books. And that outside of the NIST report 'everyone' knows this is what happened.

I increasingly get the feeling this is the white-collar version of Creation Science. These are people who know nothing about science or the idea of an academic concensus. And despite how easily they discard any disagreement as conspiracy, they desperately cling to anyone with a degree who will validate them (except Judy Wood).

Well, it's a genuine belief, but it's also held by a diminishingly small number of people. I've run into zero truthers in real life. The closest I've ever come is to stop behind a car at a red light that had an "Investigate 9/11" bumpersticker.

Really, truthers disappear when you log off the 'net. We too often don't realize this when we're commenting in this forum because the delusion peddlers who come here tend to be unusually persistent and can make an internet splash far out of proportion to their actual numbers, but really, seeing truthers out in the wild is rare. Especially nowadays. So yeah, for the ones that are left, their belief in the delusion is unquestioned. But their numbers are indeed slim.

[Scott Sommers]

This is a very interesting point and corresponds with my experience. I don't live in the Western Hemisphere and although almost everyione I work with is American, I only heard about this nonsense a while back. I've seen many videos of demonstrations on the net, but I know of no one who has every heard of one. The response to 911 TM demonstrators who infiltrate political demonstrations at universities (like Kevin Barrett), seems to be uniformly bad.

[johnny karate]

JihadJane, was the word-twisting sophistry you used to defend your dishonest use of the word "many" because you also engage in the "cavalier" and "propagandistic approach to the truth and reality" of which you've just now accused others?

Or is just that you are an intellectually dishonest hypocrite who only puts on the appearance of semantic pedantry as a means of attacking your ideological opponents?

Bump for JihadJane.

[Dave Rogers]

I been reading comments left on Youtube TM videos

There's your problem, right there.

http://xkcd.com/481/

Dave

[Hokulele]

http://xkcd.com/202/


You have to read the mouseover.

[Justin39640]

http://xkcd.com/202/


You have to read the mouseover.

one of my collapse model video comments suffered a drive by truthing the other day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhf6mfnZyME
then the bastard gave it one star lol

ps- help a fella out with some 5 stars :)

[Scott Sommers]

One of the most obvious aspects of 911 Truth over on Youtube is comments about explosions. When I ask about the importance of these to their mythology, I can't seem to get a meaningful answer. Is the implication that these explosions CAUSED the collapse of buildings like WTC 7? Or is the implication that these are the controlled demolition explosions that we say don't exist and that no one can see or hear? What is it about these large explosions that seems so important to these folks?

[Dave Rogers]

It's that old context thing again. To a sane person, explosions are only significant in terms of the time and place they occurred, and we realise that explosions needed to have happened seconds before the collapse to initiate it. Truthers have no idea of context, and so are able to claim that explosions an hour before the collapse were the demolition charges that caused the collapse. Without a coherent narrative, nothing can have context; the truthers try to get round this by pretending that nothing needs context.

Dave

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's that old context thing again. To a sane person, explosions are only significant in terms of the time and place they occurred, and we realise that explosions needed to have happened seconds before the collapse to initiate it. Truthers have no idea of context, and so are able to claim that explosions an hour before the collapse were the demolition charges that caused the collapse. Without a coherent narrative, nothing can have context; the truthers try to get round this by pretending that nothing needs context.


Everything's just a piece of the puzzle (http://www.craphound.com/images/puzzlepiecemountain.jpg), maaan...

[Arus808]

just checking in, but has Stevie posted a link to a credible source that has the 1000 paid shills claim?

[Longfellow]

just checking in, but has Stevie posted a link to a credible source that has the 1000 paid shills claim?

I'll try "No" for a Thousand, Alex.

[eromitlab]

just checking in, but has Stevie posted a link to a credible source that has the 1000 paid shills claim?

Of course not. I think Steve is still going with what I posted is exactly what he was talking about, he knew about what I posted but never posted it, and we're still supposed to find proof of his claims ourselves.