My Impromptu Debate with Richard Gage outside The White House

[The Director]

It was my first ever trip to Washington D.C. My wife and I were walking with her parents down Pennsylvania Avenue in awe of the grandeur of the executive mansion. My wife tugged at my arm and said, “Hey Kevin, who is that guy with a camera on him? Is he a congressman?” The guy did, in fact, look familiar. He just got finished unfurling a banner right off the sidewalk that said, “Hundreds of Archietects and Engineers Demand a Real 9/11 Investigation.”

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4945.jpg

After reading the banner, my suspicions were confirmed, “Holy Cow, that is Richard Gage.” My father-and-law asked, “Who is he?” I replied, “He is one of the primary leaders of the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement.” My father-in-law patted me on the back and said, “Go get ‘em Kevin, take as long as you need.”

I have read much of Richard Gage’s work. I had also watched hours of him giving lectures, and appearing on the television programs Hardfire and the BBC’s Conspiracy Files. I never dreamed of meeting him in person. I knew his presentation style and judging by what he was saying I got there just when he began speaking.

“How many of you here today,” he said to a small crowd gathered round, “know about the third tower that fell on 9/11?” I, and a young lady beside me, raised our hands. He, and his camera man, approached me, “You sir, where did you see the third tower fall?” “ I responded, “I saw it live on television.” He repeated what I said and continued to ask, “…and how did the building come down? Had you ever seen something like that before?” I knew where he was going, he was trying to get me to say, “The building fell just like a building being blown up.” I said instead, “The building was on fire all afternoon and it fell down just as the fire department and on site building engineers predicted.” The girl beside me was a 9/11 Truther. She was quick to oblige, “The building fell down as if it had bombs in it.”

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4950.jpg

That was all Richard needed to engage in his dog and pony show. It is impossible for me to provide an accurate transcript of our impromptu debate two weeks ago. 9/11 Truthers are notorious for engaging in Proof by Verbosity (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178913674543933493&ei=tCR-SrSwBND5lQetzsHZAQ&q=here+be+dragons#14m12s), therefore it would be impossible for me to provide a word-by-word account. Richard did have a camera on throughout our entire conversation, and he and his volunteers are currently posting the videos from the D.C. trip on the Internet, however I do not expect to see a video of our encounter posted, especially in its entirety. Why?

Richard Gage and his organization post videos religiously. Whether it is him giving a presentation at a community college or speaking to someone who just happens to walk up to his booth during an architects convention that has no idea what he is talking about. However, we have seen that when someone mops the floor with Richard (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809&ei=TSV-SoeTDcXvlQeo5vDrDg&q=hardfire+richard+gage), or at the very least challenges his beliefs, he does not post videos or advertise them at his ae911truth.org website. Yes, he posts videos of the most mundane conversations in which he tries to get these old geezers (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/74) (barely in their right mind) to sign his petition, however, he does not post a video on his website with him debating a lead researcher in the 9/11 Truth debunking movement, Mark Roberts, when they both appeared on a coast-to-coast satellite interview on a local cable television show broadcasting to New York’s 8.3 million citizens (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809&ei=TSV-SoeTDcXvlQeo5vDrDg&q=hardfire+richard+gage). Why? Because Richard Gage got his rear-end handed to him, even when he and the host tried to catch Mark unaware by changing the topic of the debate moments before going on air. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789539&postcount=128)

However, I will post photos of the exchange, and will try my best to recall what was said on a few key topics. Note, while Richard and I began our conversation, his 2-3 little followers who had been voicing support as he spoke, slowly walked away.

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4946.jpg

Interesting Tidbits

1) I let Richard know that I knew who he was and I even shook his hand. I told him that I could once be considered a ‘truther’ for a very short time, but that all changed very quickly. Richard smiled and said, “I see, so you are reformed?”

2) Richard claimed that there has been no real investigation into the collapse of WTC7. I pointed out that there had been, he just didn’t like the results. I pointed out that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology poured millions of dollars of research into an investigation and that we have no conclusive evidence why we should distrust their finding.

3) Richard claimed that there were only minimal fires in WTC7—nothing to bring down a building. I pointed out that there are plenty of videos of WTC7’s collapse but the vast majority of them are shot from a “safe” angle outside of Ground Zero. Videos have been released, even recently, that show that the side of WTC7 facing the former WTC complex was totally engulfed, or “fully involved” (http://debunkdirectory.blogspot.com/search/label/videofootageWTC7) as the FDNY put it. He attempted to correct me and say, “Yes, these videos only show black smoke billowing out of multiple floors of the complex—“ I interrupted him. “—and where there’s smoke Richard…” He reluctantly said, “Well, you’d think there would be fire.” I also told the people listening to check out the BBC’s debunking of this “minimal fires” claim. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=myh-St4oiYSWB5a04IYB&q=the+conspiracy+files+911#40m00s)

4) Richard then went on to use his infamous "first time in history" claims to which we are all so familiar. After he was finished, I opined, "Richard, no matter where you are coming from September 11th was a day of firsts. Yes, it was the first time in history that a building this size collapsed due to fire. But, it was also the first time in history that the fifth tallest building in the world falls on a 47 story more than half it's size to ignite that fire. It was also the first time in history that a skyscraper's fires were not fought, as Tower 1's collapse severed the building's sprinkler lines and then the firefighter's pulled their operations. We simply do not have a control to compare this to."

5) The only time that I actually played offense was toward the end with what I consider my pet peeve. I told Gage that I am generally upset how he uses the Larry Silverstien quote ‘Pull it’ of evidence of conspiracy. Richard quickly turned to his camera to give context to my complaint. I then told Richard straight up, “Every time you use this claim you are implicating the FDNY, an organization that lost over 300 brothers on that day.” Richard quickly denied the assertion. “Ok, Richard, who is Silverstein talking to?” He replied correctly, “To a commander from the New York Fire Department.” I then said, “Ok, Richard, now what was the quote?” He stumbled through trying to remember precisely the quote. Knowing that he had been cornered, he then quickly transitioned into a farewell.

6) Richard shook my hand and told me (and the camera) that he would love to carry on the conversation and to perhaps eat lunch together but he had a plane to catch. He shook my hand and told the camera that it was a pleasure meeting a fellow JREFer outside of the White House. I then shared with him my JREF identiy.

7) Richard’s cameraman then made the statement, “Well, isn’t this a total coincidence that you just happened to bump into Richard Gage right outside of the White House.” This isn’t the first time that a conspiracy theoriest has eluded that I am a government plant, or better yet, working for the CIA.


Richard Gage had probably only been there speaking for about 10-15 minutes and then he wanted to leave pretty quickly. The conversation was completely cordial and, dare I say, pleasant.

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4955.jpg

Afterwards, he even introduced himself to my wife. Richard is pretty much the only leader of the 9/11 Truth movement that I would want to engage in conversation that long. If I saw Alex Jones or Jason Bermas on the street, I would probably be so incensed that I would not even bother talking with them, and knowing their conversational style, I would not have the opportunity to open my mouth over their megaphones.

I was beaming after the conversation. Was it because I met a celebrity in one of my former hobbies? No. It was because I felt that using the evidence that I researched years ago and through civil debate, I was able to completely debunk the best of the best of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Also, I believe that down deep inside, Richard could hear where I was coming from. I hope that someday he can ‘reformed’ as well.

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4959.jpg

[AZCat]

Congratulations on keeping your head together. Civility and rationality are difficult to maintain when tangling with truthers.

[wicked_ways]

The Director,
This is great! Thanks for recounting your story with pictures.
Especially the last one, what a cute couple!:)

[Doctor Evil]

Thank you for the story. The check is in the mail ;)

[boloboffin]

Great story. AE911Truth tweeted about Monday, and said they had spoken to "dozens of tourists" outside the White House. Little mention was made of any rear-ends being handed to Richard. :D

Keep up the good work.

[The Director]

Congratulations on keeping your head together. Civility and rationality are difficult to maintain when tangling with truthers.
Yes, I have learned from experience. I have lost my cool over the radio while debating a Truther.

I was very tempted to get in to "box boy" language and "you never designed anything bigger than a gymnasium" mode, but I resisted that temptation in order to carry on a fruitful conversation.

Thanks for reading.

[The Director]

The Director,
This is great! Thanks for recounting your story with pictures.
Especially the last one, what a cute couple!:)

HaHa, Thanks...

I first got into debunking when we first got married and I think that she thought it was a totally useless enterprise. However, she walked away from this little debate PUMPED.

[The Director]

Thank you for the story. The check is in the mail ;)

Luckily, Richard did not see me take the phonebooth/elevator back inside The White House.

...and aren't you aware? Since the NWO controls all of the banks in the world, they have been doing wire transfers for decades!

[Doctor Evil]

Luckily, Richard did not see me take the phonebooth/elevator back inside The White House.

...and aren't you aware? Since the NWO controls all of the banks in the world, they have been doing wire transfers for decades!

Hey, its just a figure of speech :p

[LashL]

Nicely done, The Director. Many thanks for sharing your story and your photos. :)

[KJC]

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories... absolutely any random guy off the street can give the "experts" of the conspiracy movement their ass handed to them.

[Horatius]

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_4955.jpg





Best. Pose. Ever.



Seriously, good job and all.

[Hokulele]

Thanks for sharing, and I hope the rest of the trip was equally enjoyable.

After reading the banner, my suspicions were confirmed, “Holy Cow, that is Richard Gage.” My father-and-law asked, “Who is he?”


That pretty much says it all. ;)

[Foolmewunz]

Nice going, The Director!

Is this what Richard's come to? One of the crazies who want to put pants on cows who'll be in front of the White House? (I think for you English folk out there this is the equivalent of the Hyde Park "people with a cause" types.)

Did he say why he was there? Did it appear to be organized, or just Richard taking advantage of some free time and deciding to bring the message to the masses?

[A W Smith]

That was neat. Nice Job The Director! I hope you remembered to punch out after you left the white house grounds. :D

[boloboffin]

Nice going, The Director!

Is this what Richard's come to? One of the crazies who want to put pants on cows who'll be in front of the White House? (I think for you English folk out there this is the equivalent of the Hyde Park "people with a cause" types.)

Did he say why he was there? Did it appear to be organized, or just Richard taking advantage of some free time and deciding to bring the message to the masses?

Richard was there for an AIA conference. He'd done some sightseeing the day before and was fresh from delivering his "scathing letter" for Dr. Sunder to the security guard at NIST.

[16.5]

Well done, keeping one's temper makes all the difference in the world.

Of course, you appeared to have Gale Sayers watching your back.

DA BEARS!

[Foolmewunz]

7) Richard’s cameraman then made the statement, “Well, isn’t this a total coincidence that you just happened to bump into Richard Gage right outside of the White House.”

One of those great Ishuddasaid moments.

"No. This is just what your movement's come to. Strangers passing on the street can set the boss back on his heels because he has so real actual science in his presentation that a mere dilettante can take it apart. Get used to it."

[Hokulele]

Of course, you appeared to have Gale Sayers watching your back.


He is shorter than I expected.

;)

[AZCat]

He is shorter than I expected.

;)

He also hits like a train when you're trying to tackle him, according to my father.

[Arus808]

nicely done Director...maybe he was just jealous of your good looks to continue in trying to debate you ^_~ . Give your wife the biggest hug for letting you have your 15 minutes...

[Longfellow]

Good read. Well done.

[Pardalis]

It's amazing to see him spouting the same rubbish year after year, I mean he must know he's lying by now.

[Magenta]

Thank you for the interesting post and photos, The Director, and well done on keeping your cool.


7) Richard’s cameraman then made the statement, “Well, isn’t this a total coincidence that you just happened to bump into Richard Gage right outside of the White House.” This isn’t the first time that a conspiracy theoriest has eluded that I am a government plant, or better yet, working for the CIA.


I wonder if he noticed the guys filming across the street or the cop on horseback. Horse-cam anyone? :tinfoil

[Brainster]

Great job! I am putting this on SLC for the Sunday morning post! Great timing, TD!

:)

[Audible Click]

Kudos! I imagine he was very surprised and not in a nice way. :D

[Dog Town]

Congratulations on keeping your head together. Civility and rationality are difficult to maintain when tangling with truthers.

Fair enough, but why? RG is a maroon, PTB's wet dream! I hope to meet his lazy ass! It will not go like that!

[Dog Town]

it's amazing to see him spouting the same rubbish year after year, i mean he must know he's lying by now.

lucky for him, Twoofers pay his bills!

[Alt+F4]

Nicely done, The Director. Many thanks for sharing your story and your photos. :)

Agreed. You and your wife are so cute, with all that blonde hair! :)

[Monketey Ghost]

Entertaining. And wonderful... I might imagine myself doing much worse... getting into a heated argument, questioning his patriotism, going all sorts of directions that would neither be effective nor reflect well on the skeptical community at large.

My hero. You and your wife appear much like myself and mine... if you're ever in Lansing Michigan for some reason, look me up. :)

[TruthersLie]

I'm just waiting for the twoof to come in and say it is fake.

That it isn't you in the photos and you don't have any video to support it...

[T.A.M.]

The only plant was the truther girl who said it fell "like bombs were used"...lol

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

This caught my eye last night but i didn't comment on it


He shook my hand and told the camera that it was a pleasure meeting a fellow JREFer outside of the White House.


Gage is registered here?

[~enigma~]

This caught my eye last night but i didn't comment on it





Gage is registered here?
Guess we can't call him an idiot anymore...

[T.A.M.]

Guess we can't call him an idiot anymore...

until he announces to us who he is, why not? For all we know, David Ray Griffin could be a member here, but I am not about to stop calling him a moron.

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Not sure how I would have handled that conversation with Gage in person. I suspect similar to how I respond to all people here though with fewer reservations about my word choice. Gage might be somone whom you can hold a friendly conversation with over a cup of coffee but his malpractice on much of the "evidence" he purports isn't something I can easily tolerate.

Glad it actually did go well considering :)

[Crazytimes]

That is awesome. How did he know you were a jref member ? Did you tell him or does he lurk here so often that what you were saying sounded familiar ?

[Lennart Hyland]

Great job! Thanks for a nice read!

[fourtoe]

Very awesome story, you handled it perfectly. I like that your father-in-law told you to take your time, you married into the right family, man.

I think it actually is a little better for the TM that Gage was at The White House. I remember in 9/11 Deniers Speak at GZ the Muslim person was yelling at a Truther to go and protest at The White House instead of at the place where people lost their lives. I really agree with that, go to The White House if you're gonna do protesting, don't go to GZ, that just seems like exploitation.

Sadly, it didn't sound like Gage was up to anything genuine, he just wanted to do his version of Leno's "Jay-Walking."

Again, awesome job. I'm also absurdly jealous, I need to see when Gage comes to LA next.

[George152]

Well done.
But its all water off ducks backs.
He'll go on peddling the same rubbish without thought.

[Senenmut]

did he bring up nanothermite?

[beachnut]

...
7) Richard’s cameraman then made the statement, “Well, isn’t this a total coincidence that you just happened to bump into Richard Gage right outside of the White House.” This isn’t the first time that a conspiracy theoriest has eluded that I am a government plant, or better yet, working for the CIA. ...
Gage and cameraman display paranoid and stupid (as in faulty research, no evidence, delusions, failed physics, etc.) traits; the standard for 911 conspiracy theorist. Nice post; what you would expect when you get him on a subject not in his canned spiel and you reveal his shallow research and faulty logic catching him on the "pull it".

outstanding post

[njslim]

Wasn't fair - caught him without his boxes. If had those boxes would have been able
to convince you....

[tsig]

Wasn't fair - caught him without his boxes. If had those boxes would have been able
to convince you....

He went from a respected professor to walking around the streets talking stupid.

[Gravy]

Outstanding, The Director! I am impressed by your composure. As someone who's had my fair share of truther street encounters, I know how hard it can be not to shout, "How insane do you have to be to still be peddling this idiocy?" You went above and beyond the call of rationalism by not taking Gage by the shoulders and giving him Shaken Baby Syndrome.

[Gravy]

He went from a respected professor to walking around the streets talking stupid.I'm not aware of him being a professor, respected or not. AFAIK he's just an IHOP/MIHOP architect.

[Hokulele]

*Throws pretzels at Gravy*

[nicepants]

5) The only time that I actually played offense was toward the end with what I consider my pet peeve. I told Gage that I am generally upset how he uses the Larry Silverstien quote ‘Pull it’ of evidence of conspiracy. Richard quickly turned to his camera to give context to my complaint. I then told Richard straight up, “Every time you use this claim you are implicating the FDNY, an organization that lost over 300 brothers on that day.” Richard quickly denied the assertion. “Ok, Richard, who is Silverstein talking to?” He replied correctly, “To a commander from the New York Fire Department.” I then said, “Ok, Richard, now what was the quote?” He stumbled through trying to remember precisely the quote. Knowing that he had been cornered, he then quickly transitioned into a farewell.


Of course he did. He couldn't stick to this subject very long without having to admit he blames the FDNY....his logic requires him to.

If I ever encounter Mr. Gage this will be the question/subject that I lead with.

[The Director]

Thanks for sharing, and I hope the rest of the trip was equally enjoyable.




That pretty much says it all. ;)

While attending church today, I was getting pats on the back from folks that read this thread. When some asked for context, I told them it was about me debating a conspiracy theorist in D.C. named Richard Gage and they all replied with, "Who?"

[Gravy]

*Throws pretzels at Gravy*Gravy invokes the two-hour rule, picks up pretzels from floor, and eats them. Without choking.

[The Director]

That is awesome. How did he know you were a jref member ? Did you tell him or does he lurk here so often that what you were saying sounded familiar ?
He literally assumed it. I made no mention of JREF, and as you can tell, I'm not a frequent poster. I was actually surprised that he brought it up.

I guess in his world the only people who question his story all conspire on these forums.

[The Director]

That's the beauty of conspiracy theories... absolutely any random guy off the street can give the "experts" of the conspiracy movement their ass handed to them.

This is the absolute truth.

[The Director]

Wasn't fair - caught him without his boxes. If had those boxes would have been able
to convince you....

To be honest, and I have given thought to this, if I could add one more thing to my conversation with Richard it would be along the lines of: "Richard, I say this because I have a modicum of respect for you. If you want us to treat you seriously again make sure that those boxes never see the light of day and publicly apologize for insulting our intelligence."

[The Director]

Outstanding, The Director! I am impressed by your composure. As someone who's had my fair share of truther street encounters, I know how hard it can be not to shout, "How insane do you have to be to still be peddling this idiocy?" You went above and beyond the call of rationalism by not taking Gage by the shoulders and giving him Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Mr. Roberts I am honored by your kind words, and as I have said before you were the one that inspired my research, web building, and pursuit in debunking. You were the first, and the best, to make debunking sexy.

[tsig]

To be honest, and I have given thought to this, if I could add one more thing to my conversation with Richard it would be along the lines of: "Richard, I say this because I have a modicum of respect for you. If you want us to treat you seriously again make sure that those boxes never see the light of day and publicly apologize for insulting our intelligence."



You could dowse them in kerosene and set them on fire I think the boxes would collapse.

[The Director]

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_5091.jpg

I figured that this photo would interest you as well. While my wife and I visited the impact zone of Flight 77, we pulled up the 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=PlayList&p=43C16CF6C5BE4133&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2) computer simulation on my iPhone and followed the exact path of the doomed flight.

To be honest, and perhaps a bit sappy, there were tears in my eyes at the taking of this photograph.

[ref]

Thanks, that was a good story :)

[Blender Head]

Consider yourself lucky to have met him in a setting less hostile to reason and logic. When I met him last September, I was in a wolves den. Suffice to say, it was not easy to stay as composed as you were.

[tfk]

Director,

Congratulations. Excellent work. Nice job keeping your composure &, in the best sporting tradition, even shaking his hand afterward.

For the folks watching, it was very important that you maintain the credibility associated with sanity & rationality. It's a crying shame that Gage (& Steven Jones) are clever enough to fake this.

"Sincerity's the key. Once you can fake this, you've got it made..."

Tom

PS. Re: The Family Unit.

If I may share a comment my dad used to offer every time I came home with a new girlfriend...

"Congratulations, Director. It's clear that you've got better taste than she does."

"Thanks dad. Hey! Wait a minute..."

;)

[Disbelief]

This caught my eye last night but i didn't comment on it


Gage is registered here?

I think everyone could take a good guess at his screen name, I know I have an idea.

Nice work Director. I Have never met a member of the TM in real life, and you debate one of the leaders. I must say, I am a bit jealous!

[njslim]

Outstanding, The Director! I am impressed by your composure. As someone who's had my fair share of truther street encounters, I know how hard it can be not to shout, "How insane do you have to be to still be peddling this idiocy?" You went above and beyond the call of rationalism by not taking Gage by the shoulders and giving him Shaken Baby Syndrome.

Gravy - was in NYC last week and made the pilgrimage to WTC to pay my respects
(always go to bronze plaque on FDNY Ten House to read over names of firefighter
brothers lost that day)

Didn't see any of the truthers types - only some "street people" babling incohertly about
WTC

Was there on Friday afternoon

Any particular time truthers come to harass people?

[Crazytimes]

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_5091.jpg



This picture makes me laugh for the simple reason that it reminds me of the truther crap about Hani Hanjour being a horrible pilot. LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT BUILDING !!!!!!

[Quad4_72]

Well done! That is some crazy luck running into him like that.

[Macgyver1968]

The only plant was the truther girl who said it fell "like bombs were used"...lol

TAM:)

Was she the chick in the brown with the thing on her arm?...she's kinda hot.

I'd like to CD a part of her. :)

[fourtoe]

Was she the chick in the brown with the thing on her arm?...she's kinda hot.

I'd like to CD a part of her. :)

Yeah she was kind of cute. It sucks that her status as a Truther makes her less attractive.

[Bobert]

Congratulations on keeping your head together. Civility and rationality are difficult to maintain when tangling with truthers.
That would have been SWEEEET though if the last picture was of gage in a head lock!

[The Director]

Yeah she was kind of cute. It sucks that her status as a Truther makes her less attractive.

For clarification sake, it was NOT the girl with tats, it was the other one. So, PERHAPS you still have a chance.

[Rocko]

Awesome post :) The pics just make it all the better, and I did a genuine lol at the one of you shrugging.

[fourtoe]

For clarification sake, it was NOT the girl with tats, it was the other one. So, PERHAPS you still have a chance.

Very good to hear.


Also, where are the 84 cameras at the Pentagon? I looked over the photo a little bit and thought that I would at least see one. I'll look again.

[Macgyver1968]

Awesome post :) The pics just make it all the better, and I did a genuine lol at the one of you shrugging.

Definitely...best pic ever..at least for 9/11 debate. Your 8,049,858,565,343th when porn is included.

[The Director]

Very good to hear.


Also, where are the 84 cameras at the Pentagon? I looked over the photo a little bit and thought that I would at least see one. I'll look again.

If memory serves I do remember seeing about 4 cameras outside the perimiter. These cameras were the very small (I call them) dome cameras that sit atop most government buildings.

However, seeing the Pentagon for myself made me realize what a huge perimiter that those little bitty cameras survey. This brings up a whole new can of worms. Do I believe that more videos exist of Flight 77s impact? I wouldn't rule it out of speculation. Should the United States military cave to the request of every CT especially when AMPLE evidence is already in existence? No.

A case in point is Jason Bermas in the Popular Mechanics article. He was literally demanding that government agencies put Flight 93s debris together, literally so he can see it. It is literally, "I think you are hidig something" "All due respect, but who cares what you think?"

[The Director]

* I meant Popular Mechanics debate...not article.

**I used the word literally way too many times up there. Oh well, I am typing on my iPhone, so it is difficult to proofread.

[Gravy]

Mr. Roberts I am honored by your kind words, and as I have said before you were the one that inspired my research, web building, and pursuit in debunking. You were the first, and the best, to make debunking sexy.*Gravy hugs The Director in an A-framey, totally non-homosexual way.*

[The Director]

*Gravy hugs The Director in an A-framey, totally non-homosexual way.*

HaHa...A-Frame, indeed.

[Gravy]

Gravy - was in NYC last week and made the pilgrimage to WTC to pay my respects (always go to bronze plaque on FDNY Ten House to read over names of firefighter brothers lost that day)

Didn't see any of the truthers types - only some "street people" babling incohertly about WTC

Was there on Friday afternoon

Any particular time truthers come to harass people?
Les Jamieson's group stopped doing their weekly "the hijackers are still alive" shtick at Union Square because that might really interfere with collecting signatures for their Petition of Fail. Its website's last entries are for September, 2008, along with this: "If we re-investigate in 2008 We'll solve the crime in 2009!"

Supposedly Wearechange still gathers on Saturdays, 1-5, at the WTC, and has another gathering on the 11th of each month at Union Square.

Their recent meetups show between one and 10 members attending. Only two showed for the trespassing trial of Luke Rudkowski and "Manny Velencia" [sic], one of whom was Luke. Their "actions" page lists no events for 9/11/09, and no one has signed up for their 9/12/09 meetup.

They're still selling their prophetic "2008: Now or Never!" T-Shirts. They must have taken a bath on last year's 9/11 events.

[ElMondoHummus]

*Gravy hugs The Director in an A-framey, totally non-homosexual way.*

Liar. I see where your hand is at. :eek:

;):D:p

[fourtoe]

If memory serves I do remember seeing about 4 cameras outside the perimiter. These cameras were the very small (I call them) dome cameras that sit atop most government buildings.

However, seeing the Pentagon for myself made me realize what a huge perimiter that those little bitty cameras survey. This brings up a whole new can of worms. Do I believe that more videos exist of Flight 77s impact? I wouldn't rule it out of speculation. Should the United States military cave to the request of every CT especially when AMPLE evidence is already in existence? No.

A case in point is Jason Bermas in the Popular Mechanics article. He was literally demanding that government agencies put Flight 93s debris together, literally so he can see it. It is literally, "I think you are hidig something" "All due respect, but who cares what you think?"

Well I don't doubt that there were a bunch of cameras that actually caught the plane hitting the Pentagon, I just wonder if they would be even better than the one they did release.

And yeah there is a lot of evidence already supporting the OT which is overwhelmingly convincing to me, but I would actually want the Truthers to get the other videos. I'm not too familiar with the reasoning for not making them public.

[Gravy]

Well I don't doubt that there were a bunch of cameras that actually caught the plane hitting the Pentagon, I just wonder if they would be even better than the one they did release.Really? Why do you think there would have been "a bunch" of Pentagon cameras pointed at that area, and why do you think their images (assuming their survival after the crash) would not be released? Do you have specific disagreements with the Pentagon's response to the FOIA requests for any such videos?

"Fifty-six (56) of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....I personally reviewed the remaining twenty-nine (29) videotapes. I determined that sixteen (16) of these video tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....Out of the remaining thirteen (13) videotapes, which did show the Pentagon crash site, twelve (12) videotapes only showed the Pentagon after. I determined that only one videotape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001"

Excerpt from statement of FBI Agent Jacqueline McGuire, who viewed all the videotapes collected as evidence.

[fourtoe]

Really? Why do you think there would have been "a bunch" of Pentagon cameras pointed at that area, and why do you think their images (assuming their survival after the crash) would not be released? Do you have specific disagreements with the Pentagon's response to the FOIA requests for any such videos?


Well I'll be damned. I need to look into the Pentagon aspect of the 911 CT more, I know hardly anything about it and should start looking at the section at 911myths.

[Lupie]

The Director,

You conducted yourself in a way that is probably the polar opposite of what this man expected. You kept your cool, and you used facts. Nothing more, nothing less.

Outstanding!

L.

[fourtoe]

ok, I'm at flight77.info now and it seems to be setting me straight.

[Darat]

Test post

[Tricky]

There is some sort of bug with the second page of this thread. I'm removing it for now but will try to get it back when the bug is fixed.

[Dave Rogers]

There is some sort of bug with the second page of this thread. I'm removing it for now but will try to get it back when the bug is fixed.

That's the page where the conspiracy theorists posted all that stuff that proves Gage was right, isn't it? But it was just some random bug?

Yeah. Right.

Dave

[Horatius]

That's the page where the conspiracy theorists posted all that stuff that proves Gage was right, isn't it? But it was just some random bug?

Yeah. Right.

Dave



I was going to do a NWO Kitty comic on this, but my artistic skills just aren't up to drawing The Tick.


Sorry Tricky!

[Hokulele]

I was going to do a NWO Kitty comic on this, but my artistic skills just aren't up to drawing The Tick.


Sorry Tricky!


Just use the Alex Jones blobman and put some antennae on top.

It's close enough.

[ref]

The Director gets a mention here (and appears in one photo, which is one of the photos presented in the OP):

We then went to Pennsylvania Avenue and laid out our large banner in front of the White House: "9/11: Hundreds of Architects and Engineers are Calling for a Real Investigation." We spoke with many interested tourists and an alleged truther-turned-debunker who recited to us long-discredited Popular Mechanics official conspiracy theory arguments.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/83

[Arus808]

haha, look at that spin

[deep]

(and appears in one photo, which is one of the photos presented in the OP)


To the OP: did AE911T take the photo from this thread and re-post it without permission? If so, they should remove it immediately and apologize.

[Justin39640]

To the OP: did AE911T take the photo from this thread and re-post it without permission? If so, they should remove it immediately and apologize.

that is the OP's pic
good call if they didnt have the permission to use it

[The Director]

The Director gets a mention here (and appears in one photo, which is one of the photos presented in the OP):

I was unaware of this mention. Thank you for letting me know about this. Yes, that is my wife's photo. Do I care that he is using it? No. He is committing much more heinously unethical acts than mere Internet piracy.

[MSgtWeiss]

This picture makes me laugh for the simple reason that it reminds me of the truther crap about Hani Hanjour being a horrible pilot. LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT BUILDING !!!!!!

I barely recognized the place, and I worked there for many years.

They have added that fence -- that must have cost about as much as a new Abrams tank -- nice plantings, and some sort of a sidewalk.

Before 9-11, none of that was there -- just lawn & a heliport, bordered by freeway.

I see they still don't have lots of cameras ringing the building, waiting for the next plane. In all my Youtube debating with Twoofer morons, I have never had any of them answer the key question: what would be the purpose of having high-speed cameras all over the outside of the building? Neat nature footage of the rats in the South Parking dumpsters?

[mythstifieD]

6) Richard shook my hand and told me (and the camera) that he would love to carry on the conversation and to perhaps eat lunch together but he had a plane to catch. He shook my hand and told the camera that it was a pleasure meeting a fellow JREFer outside of the White House. I then shared with him my JREF identiy.

He's a JREFer????

[mythstifieD]

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_5091.jpg

I figured that this photo would interest you as well. While my wife and I visited the impact zone of Flight 77, we pulled up the 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=PlayList&p=43C16CF6C5BE4133&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2) computer simulation on my iPhone and followed the exact path of the doomed flight.

To be honest, and perhaps a bit sappy, there were tears in my eyes at the taking of this photograph.

What the... there's no hole there.. and the grass looks ready for a golf game!!

[MSgtWeiss]

Really? Why do you think there would have been "a bunch" of Pentagon cameras pointed at that area, and why do you think their images (assuming their survival after the crash) would not be released? Do you have specific disagreements with the Pentagon's response to the FOIA requests for any such videos?

I think it's reasonable to assume that there would be no point to security cameras unless they were monitored by someone. Unlike 7-Eleven security cameras, which are only there to provide after-the-fact identification of criminals (store policy is to give them whatever they want), security cameras on a (more-or-less) secure building have little point unless you are going to PREVENT a security breach. The existing parking lot footage at the Pentagon had nothing to do with building security -- it only monitored access to the parking lot and happened to catch the plane impact accidentally.

When I worked at the Pentagon (before 9-11) there were no monitors at any guard post, nor at the main security office of the Pentagon guard force. I spent time in each of these, particularly when there were the usual gangs of leftist freaks demonstrating, usually at the River or Mall Entrances. The guard force monitored these clowns visually by looking out the doors or having a response car parked nearby. If there were any camera monitors, I'd have seen them.

Even assuming that there WERE security cameras covering that big lawn area near the helipad and adjacent to South Parking, there would seem to be no point to more than one covering a specific area, if the idea was to catch some intruder walking across the lawn, and no need for anything beyond the low-speed instrument covering the parking lot.

Since classified material isn't left unattended, and is locked in safes at night, what would some hypothetical intruder be doing there? The only likely point to an intrusion would be to vandalize or paint anti-war graffiti on the outside walls, really. Getting inside the building without going through one of the guard posts would be extremely difficult.

Though I have no specific, definitive knowledge of the cameras at the Pentagon, I feel safe in stating that there were none that would catch the plane strike -- beyond what we have already seen.

[progge]

http://i570.photobucket.com/albums/ss147/kevinlfowler/100_5091.jpg

I figured that this photo would interest you as well. While my wife and I visited the impact zone of Flight 77, we pulled up the 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=PlayList&p=43C16CF6C5BE4133&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2) computer simulation on my iPhone and followed the exact path of the doomed flight.

To be honest, and perhaps a bit sappy, there were tears in my eyes at the taking of this photograph.


You were allowed to take a picture of the Pentagon? I once tried it (back in summer of 2007), and was surrounded by Pentagon police officers just seconds after that, forcing me to delete the picture from my digi cam (which also shows how well monitored the Pentagon ist today).

[mythstifieD]

Les Jamieson's group stopped doing their weekly "the hijackers are still alive" shtick at Union Square because that might really interfere with collecting signatures for their Petition of Fail. Its website's last entries are for September, 2008, along with this: "If we re-investigate in 2008 We'll solve the crime in 2009!"

Supposedly Wearechange still gathers on Saturdays, 1-5, at the WTC, and has another gathering on the 11th of each month at Union Square.

Their recent meetups show between one and 10 members attending. Only two showed for the trespassing trial of Luke Rudkowski and "Manny Velencia" [sic], one of whom was Luke. Their "actions" page lists no events for 9/11/09, and no one has signed up for their 9/12/09 meetup.

They're still selling their prophetic "2008: Now or Never!" T-Shirts. They must have taken a bath on last year's 9/11 events.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2539/3860424527_0b030eb7df.jpg

[mythstifieD]

Well I'll be damned. I need to look into the Pentagon aspect of the 911 CT more, I know hardly anything about it and should start looking at the section at 911myths.

Screw Loose Change did a fabulous job on debunking the Pentagon.

[mythstifieD]

The Director gets a mention here (and appears in one photo, which is one of the photos presented in the OP):

Who allegedly took pictures and posed with his alleged wife in front of the alleged White House where allegedly he doesn't work, but he looks allegedly pretty cool in shades so he may S.S., for sure.

[DGM]

Screw Loose Change did a fabulous job on debunking the Pentagon.
You can't "debunk" the Pentagon. It's there!........... Really, I've seen it! :D:duck:

[mythstifieD]

Most booth visitors were quite interested and open-minded. However, we did notice that architects and engineers are just as prone to preserving their worldview as non-technical people. This information is a difficult pill to swallow for anyone. Once they were willing to stop and to look at the 60" TV screen continuously highlighting the destruction of WTC 7, most of them instinctively knew that it was a controlled demolition. It took little else to gain at least their intellectual and moral support for our petition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/83


Most truly intellectual things are counter-intuitive. I don't think seeing a video at a cherrypicked angle continuously collapsing will do much for the brain except perhaps wash it of their engineering sense. It's a classic manipulation move, show the fall with the words CD right next to it, and most hapless and tired walkers will shout OMGZ!!1!11.

I visualize a guy with his eyes held open with a machine being subjected to 9/11 'proof' over and over again until he finally joins the cult...

[mythstifieD]

You can't "debunk" the Pentagon. It's there!........... Really, I've seen it! :D:duck:

Oh come on, we all know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable!

[The Director]

You were allowed to take a picture of the Pentagon? I once tried it (back in summer of 2007), and was surrounded by Pentagon police officers just seconds after that, forcing me to delete the picture from my digi cam (which also shows how well monitored the Pentagon ist today).

Yes, one is allowed to take photos only at the Flight 77 memorial...and then I had a security guard carefully watching me through his peripheral.

[MSgtWeiss]

Oh come on, we all know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable!

Unless the eyewitness happens to support the Truther theory.

That's an entirely different thing.

[MSgtWeiss]

Yes, one is allowed to take photos only at the Flight 77 memorial...and then I had a security guard carefully watching me through his peripheral.

Interesting -- I retired from the Puzzle Palace in '85 and have never been back since.

I am rather surprised to hear about the photo restrictions, since I really can't think of any reason for them. I spent most of my career in intel & security, and am reasonably familiar with the basic concepts of physical security. Some of the places I worked were in still-secret (more or less) underground locations, and some were incredibly tough to even approach ... maybe impossible, without being detected. But usually reasons for the specific security precautions in each place were pretty obvious.

Considering the real security problems at the Pentagon, like the twice-daily tours they led right past Mahogany Row (with no checks on the tourists at all), the incredibly slack guards that permitted access from the public (mall) areas into the actual DoD office areas ... access from the building exterior seems like very small potatoes.

The tours scared a lot of us, even back then, to the point that many of us kept our personal handguns in the office -- not authorized, but who cares? I was on the 3rd floor E-Ring, directly across the hall from the Chief of Staff of the Army, and I carried my .357 into the office every day in my briefcase, and kept the briefcase next to me for quick access since I faced the door. Lots & lots of foreigners on those tours, and no real defense against a sudden attack. Tour attendees were NOT searched or wanded, and some of us had serious visions of a few nuts pulling out Uzis and ruining our day.

We used to stick pictures of Lenin or Mao over the photos on our DoD building passes, just for a laugh, knowing that there was zero chance the guards were going to even look at it as we walked past from the public Concourse (mall) to the actual work areas.

Complaining about these things led nowhere. No one really cared, since no one really perceived a real threat; the civilian guard force was a featherbed job. One would HOPE this has changed to something like the CIA's civilian guards in the kind-of-hidden locations outside of Langley. Those guys were dead serious, and no one to joke with.

Does anyone have a clue as to the reason for the photo restrictions, or is this just one more dumb idea cooked up some GS-12 who transferred in from Accounting?

[The Director]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html

[liverleef]

Your gestures and facial expression while shaking Richards hand are priceless.

[funk de fino]

Gage is still a lying POS.

[R.Mackey]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html

Makes you wonder what he leaves on the cutting room floor, doesn't it? ;)

[Klimax]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html

He(Gage) included Pakistan as invaded country???? :eek:

[Grizzly Bear]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html
At the university right now but will watch this afternoon. On a side note, I see the area hasn't changed much since I visited there in June of '01.

[ElMondoHummus]

Interesting -- I retired from the Puzzle Palace in '85 and have never been back since.

I am rather surprised to hear about the photo restrictions, since I really can't think of any reason for them. I spent most of my career in intel & security, and am reasonably familiar with the basic concepts of physical security. Some of the places I worked were in still-secret (more or less) underground locations, and some were incredibly tough to even approach ... maybe impossible, without being detected. But usually reasons for the specific security precautions in each place were pretty obvious.

Considering the real security problems at the Pentagon, like the twice-daily tours they led right past Mahogany Row (with no checks on the tourists at all), the incredibly slack guards that permitted access from the public (mall) areas into the actual DoD office areas ... access from the building exterior seems like very small potatoes.

The tours scared a lot of us, even back then, to the point that many of us kept our personal handguns in the office -- not authorized, but who cares? I was on the 3rd floor E-Ring, directly across the hall from the Chief of Staff of the Army, and I carried my .357 into the office every day in my briefcase, and kept the briefcase next to me for quick access since I faced the door. Lots & lots of foreigners on those tours, and no real defense against a sudden attack. Tour attendees were NOT searched or wanded, and some of us had serious visions of a few nuts pulling out Uzis and ruining our day.

We used to stick pictures of Lenin or Mao over the photos on our DoD building passes, just for a laugh, knowing that there was zero chance the guards were going to even look at it as we walked past from the public Concourse (mall) to the actual work areas.

Complaining about these things led nowhere. No one really cared, since no one really perceived a real threat; the civilian guard force was a featherbed job. One would HOPE this has changed to something like the CIA's civilian guards in the kind-of-hidden locations outside of Langley. Those guys were dead serious, and no one to joke with.

Does anyone have a clue as to the reason for the photo restrictions, or is this just one more dumb idea cooked up some GS-12 who transferred in from Accounting?

I thought the tours were ended on 9/11. Am I mistaken on that? Not that this undermines MSgtWeiss's overall point, it's just that I thought they eliminated those.

For the record, I'm surprised at that level of security exists for simple photographs of a monument, and I share MSgtWeiss's opinion of the restrictions.

----

Edit: Nevermind the above. I'm seeing on the Pentagon's own website that tours are still being conducted (http://pentagon.afis.osd.mil/tour-selection.html). So I found the answer to my own question.

[Mr.Herbert]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html

I LOVED the look on his face when you said... "But Richard, where there's smoke......"

[Grizzly Bear]

Richard proved me wrong on one thing. He (or at least his cameraman) posted the entire video! Check it out here: http://www.baltimoregrassrootsmedia.org/files/ba663a3dee911a3743077b77e13ba72f-105.html

Saw the part where you confronted him about the smoke. I kinda chuckled when he said that the fires must not have been "hot enough to come out of the windows" or to be visible... (paraphrasing).

He then confronted you with the basic equivalent of the card board boxes... the weight of the structure below had of course nothing to do with it's ability to stop a collapse... It's the way the load is applied and the stability of the structure.

I do like that you brought up a few of the issues with the unfought fires and how the situation compared with other incidents even if he ultimately doesn't care about it. I wish I was there, I would have had a number of questions I'd have liked to pose to him myself.

Overall an interesting meeting, and I think you did alright...

[StephenJWilson]

the "director" stated:

"I pointed out that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology poured millions of dollars of research into an investigation and that we have no conclusive evidence why we should distrust their finding."

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the NIST report. What planet do you live on???

go to csi911 (dot) info

hell, just read the 9/11 commission members BOOKS!

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commissioners state that the official version is FALSE!

How can anyone (on earth) claim that the 9/11 commission members stating the official version is false state that this is not evidence contradicting the report???

Wow, some of you "official conspiracy theorists" have some serious thinking problems.

thepatriots (dot) us
patriotsquestion911 (dot) org
firefightersfor911truth (dot) org

[twinstead]

the "director" stated:

"I pointed out that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology poured millions of dollars of research into an investigation and that we have no conclusive evidence why we should distrust their finding."

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the NIST report. What planet do you live on???

go to csi911 (dot) info

hell, just read the 9/11 commission members BOOKS!

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commissioners state that the official version is FALSE!

How can anyone (on earth) claim that the 9/11 commission members stating the official version is false state that this is not evidence contradicting the report???

Wow, some of you "official conspiracy theorists" have some serious thinking problems.

thepatriots (dot) us
patriotsquestion911 (dot) org
firefightersfor911truth (dot) org

6 out of 10 9/11 commissioners think 9/11 was an inside job? If not, why use them to support your obvious opinion that it was?

On what planet is there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the NIST report? Maybe you can visit there and bring back some of it.

[StephenJWilson]

Hello,

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commission members do NOT believe the "official conspiracy theory".

If you want to hear what they have to say, I would start by reading:

Without Precendent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Written by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (both 9/11 commission members).

csi911 (dot) info

[Justin39640]

I LOVED the look on his face when you said... "But Richard, where there's smoke......"

he got a similar look at the end when the Director said "you cant use that as a control" when talking about comparing other fires to the ones in WTC7

nice job

hes another carny though (like AJ)

[StephenJWilson]

Hello,

I claim that the 3 WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

this does not claim to know who did it... HOWEVER; the Ex-President of Italy DOES claim to know who did it.

---------

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

"All the [intelligence services] of America and Europeknow well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

[twinstead]

Hello,

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commission members do NOT believe the "official conspiracy theory".

If you want to hear what they have to say, I would start by reading:

Without Precendent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Written by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (both 9/11 commission members).

csi911 (dot) info

Why don't you just tell me what they believe, because if you think their disagreement with the commission report means they support the theory that it was an inside job then you may need to read it again.

[StephenJWilson]

My argument is that the "director" does not know what he's talking about if he thinks there is "no evidence" to "mistrust" the NIST report.

The evidence that the NIST report is WRONG, is (not limited to) the fact that the 9/11 commission members state that NIST is wrong.

So.... there is evidence that the NIST report is wrong, and should not be trusted.

[StephenJWilson]

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

"All the [intelligence services] of America and Europeknow well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."

Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.

[Justin39640]

this should be quick
:popcorn6

[StephenJWilson]

study the NFPA requirements for investigating building failures:

Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero –remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.—N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 “Exotic Accelerants” states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than … they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants!

[Sam.I.Am]

:socks:

[StephenJWilson]

This is directly from the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.

19.2.4 - “Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.

Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.


Notice how little volume of flame we have, yet a significant amount of molten material that appears to be metal pouring out of the building.
In any fire where the rate of fire growth is considered exceedingly rapid, other reasons for this should be considered in addition to the use of an accelerant, exotic or otherwise. These reasons include ventilation, fire suppression tactics, and the type and configuration of the fuels.”

NIST denies the existence of molten metal even though we have video and photographic evidence suggesting otherwise. We also have witness testimony from FDNY firemen themselves. Jet fuel and content fires do not produce the temperatures necessary to produce molten steel - that is why NIST has to deny the very presence of molten metal. This is not small stuff. This is a “smoking gun.” NFPA very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.

Now, remember, the investigation is just that…an investigation. We do not need overwhelming undisputable evidence to test for accelerants. It is very routine to test a house fire for accelerants. So, why at the first and only high rise building collapse sites due to fire, was this not done? How do we get safer buildings and solve crimes if we don’t test for the very things that could have led to the collapse?

This is not something to walk away from. We have to stand up together and demand a thorough investigation, following the National Standards, and justice.

[ElMondoHummus]

Cossiga???
:dl:

Call K-Tel, folks, we're seein' all the hits from the past!! BTW, regarding Cossiga:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100367

[WildCat]

Hello,

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commission members do NOT believe the "official conspiracy theory".

If you want to hear what they have to say, I would start by reading:

Without Precendent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Written by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (both 9/11 commission members).

csi911 (dot) info
Do Kean and Hamilton think 9/11 was an inside job?

[StephenJWilson]

why do "official conspiracy theorists" believe the ONLY people that could have done this are people within the U.S. Government????

I want to know WHO did it..... I do not know WHO did it....


What I DO KNOW, is that the 3 WTC building collapses NEED to be investigated for accelerants, and the MECHANISM of collapse needs to be investigated (the 9/11 commission did NOT do this).

So, perhaps people from outside the government did it.... BUT that does not mean I don't want to know WHO!

did I clear this up for you??? I don't know WHO.... but I know WHAT happened.

[T.A.M.]

why do "official conspiracy theorists" believe the ONLY people that could have done this are people within the U.S. Government????

I want to know WHO did it..... I do not know WHO did it....


What I DO KNOW, is that the 3 WTC building collapses NEED to be investigated for accelerants, and the MECHANISM of collapse needs to be investigated (the 9/11 commission did NOT do this).

So, perhaps people from outside the government did it.... BUT that does not mean I don't want to know WHO!

did I clear this up for you??? I don't know WHO.... but I know WHAT happened.

Interestingly, Astute Pro was trying to make your EXACT argument just yesterday before he was banned.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

study the NFPA requirements for investigating building failures:

Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero –remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.—N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 “Exotic Accelerants” states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than … they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants!
All that, and still after 8 years no truther has had a paper published in a real actual science or engineering journal, I wonder why that is? I can think of only 4 possibilities:

1. All the worlds reputable engineers are being threatened by a secret all-powerful cabal that REALLY rules the world.

2. Truthers are full of crap.

3. Truthers are full of crap.

4. Truthers are full of crap.

Guess which one I'm picking?

[StephenJWilson]

anyone can "say" there is no evidence.......

but there is..... so..... all you can do is call people names, and claim the evidence that exists is a figment of all of our imaginations.

At some point the "official conspiracy theorists" are going to have to adopt a conspiracy theory themselves about us "truthers".

Afterall..... You MUST believe there is a conspiracy among licenses professionals to conspire to lie about what they have spent their carreers studying.

[StephenJWilson]

Interestingly, Astute Pro was trying to make your EXACT argument just yesterday before he was banned.

TAM:)

so you ban people that don't believe what you believe???..... telling!

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't really care which...

but bud can you choose another thread if you're not going to stick to the whole meeting topic between the Director and Gage do you think you can take this to another thread? Make your own or bump one of these that falls in the 911 CT section... I'd prefer not to contribute to derailing too much from the topic...
http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=190759

[tsig]

This is directly from the 2001 Edition of the National Fire Protection Association NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations.

19.2.4 - “Exotic Accelerants. Mixtures of fuels and Class 3 or Class 4 oxidizers may produce an exceedingly hot fire and may be used to start or accelerate a fire. Thermite mixtures also produce exceedingly hot fires. Such accelerants generally leave residues that may be visually or chemically identifiable.

Exotic accelerants have been hypothesized as having been used to start or accelerate some rapidly growing fires and were referred to in these particular instances as high temperature accelerants (HTA). Indicators of exotic accelerants include an exceedingly rapid rate of fire growth, brilliant flares (particularly at the start of the fire), and melted steel or concrete. A study of 25 fires suspected of being associated with HTAs during the 1981-1991 period revealed that there was no conclusive scientific proof of the use of such HTA.


Notice how little volume of flame we have, yet a significant amount of molten material that appears to be metal pouring out of the building.
In any fire where the rate of fire growth is considered exceedingly rapid, other reasons for this should be considered in addition to the use of an accelerant, exotic or otherwise. These reasons include ventilation, fire suppression tactics, and the type and configuration of the fuels.”

NIST denies the existence of molten metal even though we have video and photographic evidence suggesting otherwise. We also have witness testimony from FDNY firemen themselves. Jet fuel and content fires do not produce the temperatures necessary to produce molten steel - that is why NIST has to deny the very presence of molten metal. This is not small stuff. This is a “smoking gun.” NFPA very clearly states melted steel or concrete is a sign of exotic accelerants. Therefore, the debris should have been thoroughly analyzed for exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.

Now, remember, the investigation is just that…an investigation. We do not need overwhelming undisputable evidence to test for accelerants. It is very routine to test a house fire for accelerants. So, why at the first and only high rise building collapse sites due to fire, was this not done? How do we get safer buildings and solve crimes if we don’t test for the very things that could have led to the collapse?

This is not something to walk away from. We have to stand up together and demand a thorough investigation, following the National Standards, and justice.

The accelerant was jet fuel.

Do you know how investigators test for accelerents?

[T.A.M.]

the "director" stated:

"I pointed out that the National Institutes of Standards and Technology poured millions of dollars of research into an investigation and that we have no conclusive evidence why we should distrust their finding."

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that contradicts the NIST report. What planet do you live on???

Please provide exact examples of EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS the findings of the NIST report. Links are insufficient in making your argument.


go to csi911 (dot) info

hell, just read the 9/11 commission members BOOKS!

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commissioners state that the official version is FALSE!

1. I have read books on the Commission report, and I have read the commission report itself at least 5 times IN ITS ENTIRETY. I find no proclamations that the NIST report was in any way incorrect. You'll have to point me to what you are referring to.

2. 6 out of 10 did not say the official version was false. I dare u to find one of them who said the report was "false". Mind your hyperbole here son.


How can anyone (on earth) claim that the 9/11 commission members stating the official version is false state that this is not evidence contradicting the report???

1. They did not state such.
2. Opinion is not evidence...it is opinion. If I think you took my cookie, is that evidence that you did?


Wow, some of you "official conspiracy theorists" have some serious thinking problems.

thepatriots (dot) us
patriotsquestion911 (dot) org
firefightersfor911truth (dot) org

Wow, some of you "Stuck in 2006" truthers have some serious sanity and paranoia problems.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

NIST did indeed investigate for, and test the effect of, accelerants.

Jet fuel (an accelerant) was found to be a significant contributor to the collapses.

Thank you, drive through. :rolleyes:

[StephenJWilson]

All that, and still after 8 years no truther has had a paper published in a real actual science or engineering journal, I wonder why that is? I can think of only 4 possibilities:

1. All the worlds reputable engineers are being threatened by a secret all-powerful cabal that REALLY rules the world.

2. Truthers are full of crap.

3. Truthers are full of crap.

4. Truthers are full of crap.

Guess which one I'm picking?

Yes... you have to use fallacies and untruths to argue your points... TELLING!

The paper is published in an Beckam open chemical peer-reviewed journal, it explains the existance of an accelerant in the WTC dust samples. I'm sure you've heard of the paper, but you just want to ignore that it exists.

Nano-thermite was found in the dust samples.

[ElMondoHummus]

Hello,

6 out of 10 of the 9/11 commission members do NOT believe the "official conspiracy theory".

If you want to hear what they have to say, I would start by reading:

Without Precendent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission

Written by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (both 9/11 commission members).

csi911 (dot) info

Guys, don't bother going to that csi911.info page. It's just got the same old stuff we've seen before. For example, on the first text page, guess what you see right at the top? The Lee Hamilton "set up to fail" quote.

To new folks and others who're unfamiliar with 9/11 conspiracy peddling: Why would this be a lie when Hamilton really said it? Well, let's look at the entire quote to find out why:


Both of us [Hamilton and Keane] were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.


The clear context of the conspiracy peddler's use of Hamilton's quote was that there was no way the 9/11 Commision could find out the truth. The reality is that when you study the whole context, you realize Hamilton is constructing a "despite all odds" narrative. He very, very clearly states that the 9/11 Commision in fact succeeded in uncovering the truth. He unambiguously states this.

That's why that's a lie: It's not the statement itself, it's the allusion truthers attempt to make with it. Or in short, it's standard quotemining: Remove the context, portray what was said in a manner other than what was actually meant, and then use it as a platform to leverage other myths about 9/11.

So about the page our newest (heh) truther is spamming: Nothing to see here folks. Not when one of the very first things is something put to bed about a year ago.

[T.A.M.]

so you ban people that don't believe what you believe???..... telling!

I didn't ban anyone Stephen...but your assumption and accusation is...telling.

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

NIST did indeed investigate for, and test the effect of, accelerants.

Jet fuel (an accelerant) was found to be a significant contributor to the collapses.

Thank you, drive through. :rolleyes:

You are now contradicting your own fellow "official conspiracy theorists".... who argue the NIST did not have to test for it.

[WildCat]

Beckam open chemical peer-reviewed journal,
The Beckham article was not peer-reviewed. Jones paid them to publish his article, that's what Beckham is.

[R.Mackey]

You are now contradicting your own fellow "official conspiracy theorists".... who argue the NIST did not have to test for it.

No, I'm not. Your grasp of English is extremely tenuous.

By the way, what is it about you conspiracy nuts that makes you derail threads? You're not even remotely on topic. Lack of concentration? Inability to read the User Agreement? What?

P.S.: Beckham is a show-boat football player. The word you're looking for is "Bentham." Seriously, who are you copying from? Take the time to copy accurately next time.

[StephenJWilson]

Guys, don't bother going to that csi911.info page. It's just got the same old stuff we've seen before. For example, on the first text page, guess what you see right at the top? The Lee Hamilton "set up to fail" quote.

To new folks and others who're unfamiliar with 9/11 conspiracy peddling: Why would this be a lie when Hamilton really said it? Well, let's look at the entire quote to find out why:



The clear context of the conspiracy peddler's use of Hamilton's quote was that there was no way the 9/11 Commision could find out the truth. The reality is that when you study the whole context, you realize Hamilton is constructing a "despite all odds" narrative. He very, very clearly states that the 9/11 Commision in fact succeeded in uncovering the truth. He unambiguously states this.

That's why that's a lie: It's not the statement itself, it's the allusion truthers attempt to make with it. Or in short, it's standard quotemining: Remove the context, portray what was said in a manner other than what was actually meant, and then use it as a platform to leverage other myths about 9/11.

So about the page our newest (heh) truther is spamming: Nothing to see here folks. Not when one of the very first things is something put to bed about a year ago.


The page is owned by a licensed Crime Scene Investigator who's family members died due to the attacks on 9/11 (both were NYFD). You can see their names and Engines they were with at the bottom of the page.

[stateofgrace]

study the NFPA requirements for investigating building failures:

Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero –remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.—N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 “Exotic Accelerants” states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than … they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants!

Molten steel and concrete ???:confused:

[twinstead]

Jesus why do truthers come on here and spout the same old crap that's been dealt with 1000 times here already? Crap, there must be 1000 pages just on why Jones can only publish papers about his beloved thermitic material in vanity, garbage journals.

[StephenJWilson]

Please provide exact examples of EVIDENCE that CONTRADICTS the findings of the NIST report. Links are insufficient in making your argument.



1. I have read books on the Commission report, and I have read the commission report itself at least 5 times IN ITS ENTIRETY. I find no proclamations that the NIST report was in any way incorrect. You'll have to point me to what you are referring to.

2. 6 out of 10 did not say the official version was false. I dare u to find one of them who said the report was "false". Mind your hyperbole here son.



1. They did not state such.
2. Opinion is not evidence...it is opinion. If I think you took my cookie, is that evidence that you did?



Wow, some of you "Stuck in 2006" truthers have some serious sanity and paranoia problems.



TAM:)

Opinions are not evidence.... BUT eyewitness tesimony IS evidence..... THEREFORE; there is evidence that contradicts the NIST report.... THEREFORE; there is evidence to support that the NIST report is not correct, and should not be trusted.

[T.A.M.]

Yes... you have to use fallacies and untruths to argue your points... TELLING!

The paper is published in an Beckam open chemical peer-reviewed journal, it explains the existance of an accelerant in the WTC dust samples. I'm sure you've heard of the paper, but you just want to ignore that it exists.

Nano-thermite was found in the dust samples.


1. It does not explain the existence of anything. It tries to (poorly) suggest the existence of an exothermic chemical within the dust samples. It is/was poor science that did nothing to insure a proper chain of custody, did nothing outside of rudementary testing to eliminate other, more benign and more common, sources of the chips.

2. Any explanation as to why such ground breaking, geopolitical altering evidence was not good enough to get into a single REPUTABLE PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL?

3. Paint Chips were found in the dust samples.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Opinions are not evidence.... BUT eyewitness tesimony IS evidence..... THEREFORE; there is evidence that contradicts the NIST report.... THEREFORE; there is evidence to support that the NIST report is not correct, and should not be trusted.

please provide examples of witness testimony that directly contradicts the findings of the NIST report, as well as which part of the report your witness testimony contradicts.

Thanks

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

Molten steel and concrete ???:confused:

Yes, molten steel and concrete were fused together due to the attacks. This is actually one of the few pieces of evidence that was NOT illegally destroyed by the Bush Administration.

[R.Mackey]

Opinions are not evidence.... BUT eyewitness tesimony IS evidence..... THEREFORE; there is evidence that contradicts the NIST report.... THEREFORE; there is evidence to support that the NIST report is not correct, and should not be trusted.

Eyewitness testimony is not sufficiently accurate, and there are actually very few accounts that contradict NIST.

However, there is evidence that differs from NIST. If you had any hope of understanding I'd explain to you (as I have for many others) the differences between NIST and Dr. Quintiere's results, or Purdue's, for instance. But these in no way indicate NIST should not be "trusted." Science is not either black or white. Indeed, these differing viewpoints actually strengthen NIST's core conclusions.

Shall we start a pool? I've got 45 minutes.

[Grizzly Bear]

My argument is that the "director" does not know what he's talking about if he thinks there is "no evidence" to "mistrust" the NIST report.
From what I saw of his meeting with Gage he had a pretty good laymen's understanding of what NIST's task was and some of the relevant material directly related to the collapses. I can understand that he didn't have technical knowledge of the engineering materials however he did bring up issues which had I been in his position I would have not only brought up, but pushed further. I'll credit Gage for being polite during that meet up however on the technical aspects of the collapses his points didn't have merit, and you can refer to my last post on the page preceding this one for details.

Did you scrutinize Gage's arguments when you watched the footage? Can you point out any specific points that you think are noteworthy?

[StephenJWilson]

please provide examples of witness testimony that directly contradicts the findings of the NIST report, as well as which part of the report your witness testimony contradicts.

Thanks

TAM:)

Gladly;

Go to: firefightersfor911truth (dot) org

[twinstead]

Yes, molten steel and concrete were fused together due to the attacks. This is actually one of the few pieces of evidence that was NOT illegally destroyed by the Bush Administration.

It might be helpful for you to realize now you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[T.A.M.]

Gladly;

Go to: firefightersfor911truth (dot) org

Like I said...links are not sufficient here. You must provide me with the evidence that exists on that site that contradicts the NIST report, and which part of the NIST report it contradicts. Otherwise, you are merely spamming links, which is...TELLING.

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

From what I saw of his meeting with Gage he had a pretty good laymen's understanding of what NIST's task was and some of the relevant material directly related to the collapses. I can understand that he didn't have technical knowledge of the engineering materials however he did bring up issues which had I been in his position I would have not only brought up, but pushed further. I'll credit Gage for being polite during that meet up however on the technical aspects of the collapses his points didn't have merit, and you can refer to my last post on the page preceding this one for details.

Did you scrutinize Gage's arguments when you watched the footage? Can you point out any specific points that you think are noteworthy?

What I think is noteworthy is the Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11.

What I think is noteworthy is what the Dean of Engineering at University of Alaska stated: "assymetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse."

[stateofgrace]

Yes, molten steel and concrete were fused together due to the attacks. This is actually one of the few pieces of evidence that was NOT illegally destroyed by the Bush Administration.

Fused together? You mean as in heated and fused together?

Out of curiosity at what temperature does concrete melt at?

[T.A.M.]

It might be helpful for you to realize now you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

lol...maybe they used Jone's new "nanothermite fuses" to "fuse" the metal and concrete together.

Oh where do they get these people.

TAM:D

[twinstead]

Like I said...links are not sufficient here. You must provide me with the evidence that exists on that site that contradicts the NIST report, and which part of the NIST report it contradicts. Otherwise, you are merely spamming links, which is...TELLING.

TAM:)

Yes, it basically means he can't think for himself. That's what we need, another truther mindless parrot with the cajones to call US sheep. :mad:

[Grizzly Bear]

What I think is noteworthy is the Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11.

What I think is noteworthy is what the Dean of Engineering at University of Alaska stated: "assymetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse."
That's nice, but it doesn't answer my question. Is there anything you found about Gage's statements to him which you think should have been particularly noteworthy from their meeting?

[StephenJWilson]

Like I said...links are not sufficient here. You must provide me with the evidence that exists on that site that contradicts the NIST report, and which part of the NIST report it contradicts. Otherwise, you are merely spamming links, which is...TELLING.

TAM:)

I could start copying and pasting the hunderds of pages... but somehow I'm sure you will reject that as well. How about just one eyewitness?


"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"



I cannot make you think.... I can only provide you the means to think.

[T.A.M.]

What I think is noteworthy is the Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11.

What I think is noteworthy is what the Dean of Engineering at University of Alaska stated: "assymetrical damage cannot cause symmetrical collapse."

Please provide which "laws" of "Federal Crime Scene Laws" were disregarded on 9/11, and who disregarded them?

What I think is noteworthy is that your Diety, Dr. Stephen Jones has admitted that the "nanothermite" he alleges was used in the collapses, was not most likely used just for the "fuses" of traditional explosives.

TAM:)

[Sam.I.Am]

Ahhh, the "Meteorite" comes out now. We're covering all of the bases...

[ElMondoHummus]

The page is owned by a licensed Crime Scene Investigator who's family members died due to the attacks on 9/11 (both were NYFD). You can see their names and Engines they were with at the bottom of the page.

That doesn't change the fact they're wrong. If they're going to print the Hamilton quote, they shouldn't do it in the context of conspiracy fantasies about the 9/11 commision supposedly failling. They did not. The entirety of the Hamilton quote demonstrates this.

[T.A.M.]

I could start copying and pasting the hunderds of pages... but somehow I'm sure you will reject that as well. How about just one eyewitness?


"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"



I cannot make you think.... I can only provide you the means to think.

These quotes are (A) irrelevant to the NIST report, and (B) prove absolutely nothing.

Please try again, and this time perhaps use a little of your own opinion or logic instead of just providing verbal diarrhea.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Ahhh, the "Meteorite" comes out now. We're covering all of the bases...

I'm tellin' ya, K-Tel poster. All the past hits.

[StephenJWilson]

These quotes are (A) irrelevant to the NIST report, and (B) prove absolutely nothing.

Please try again, and this time perhaps use a little of your own opinion or logic instead of just providing verbal diarrhea.

TAM:)

Yes... very telling, you ask for a quote from an eyewitness.... I give it to you.... then you state basically "who cares"..... very telling.

[Mr. Skinny]

What I think is noteworthy is the Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11.
Federal Crime Scene laws?

Apologize if I missed the reference in a previous post....

[stateofgrace]

I could start copying and pasting the hunderds of pages... but somehow I'm sure you will reject that as well. How about just one eyewitness?


"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"



I cannot make you think.... I can only provide you the means to think.

In the sub basement ? So why did the towers start to collapse many many floors above ?

Why did the perps set off explosives in the basement? What was their purpose?

How did these explosions make concrete and metal fuse together ?

ETA. Why don't you just start another thread all of your own and stop derailing this thread further ?

[StephenJWilson]

Please provide which "laws" of "Federal Crime Scene Laws" were disregarded on 9/11, and who disregarded them?

What I think is noteworthy is that your Diety, Dr. Stephen Jones has admitted that the "nanothermite" he alleges was used in the collapses, was not most likely used just for the "fuses" of traditional explosives.

TAM:)

You dont seem to want to disagree with the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alaska - Anchorage.

We have federal laws in place that require a crime scene to be "preserved" for investigation. This was not done on 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

Like I said...links are not sufficient here. You must provide me with the evidence that exists on that site that contradicts the NIST report, and which part of the NIST report it contradicts. Otherwise, you are merely spamming links, which is...TELLING.

TAM:)

The above is what I asked you for. Now read it again...twice. Did I ask you SIMPLY for the testimony? No. Did I ask you for some random testimony about "explosions"? No.

Now come on, you are not really that stupid are you? Read what I asked for, and then try again. Please stop lying about what I asked for.


Yes... very telling, you ask for a quote from an eyewitness.... I give it to you.... then you state basically "who cares"..... very telling.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Look, StevenJWilson, hint: Use the search feature. Every single thing you've posted so far has already been discussed. Look at the first 3 things after the Hamilton quotemine: Free fall (and using wrong numbers to boot - it's the NIST report with the final figures, not CNN or the 9/11 Commision report), no fires in the core/path of least resistence, and pulverization/powerized. Do a search for all those terms. The point is, the myths behind those have already been refuted.

Search first.

[StephenJWilson]

Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11. There was no preservation of the evidence (steel from the buildings) to be analyzed later. In fact the steel was quickly sold to China at lower than market rate.

[StephenJWilson]

The above is what I asked you for. Now read it again...twice. Did I ask you SIMPLY for the testimony? No. Did I ask you for some random testimony about "explosions"? No.

Now come on, you are not really that stupid are you? Read what I asked for, and then try again. Please stop lying about what I asked for.




TAM:)

Edited to remove personal remarks. The point was that the "director" argued there was no evidence to support "explosions". Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Mr. Skinny]

Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11. There was no preservation of the evidence (steel from the buildings) to be analyzed later. In fact the steel was quickly sold to China at lower than market rate.
Please tell me what the law was. What Code of Federal Regulations chapter and verse?

[twinstead]

Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11. There was no preservation of the evidence (steel from the buildings) to be analyzed later. In fact the steel was quickly sold to China at lower than market rate.

Tell that to the workers at Fresh Kills who sifted through the collected rubble with a fine-toothed comb pulling out wedding rings and bone fragments.

[stateofgrace]

Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11. There was no preservation of the evidence (steel from the buildings) to be analyzed later. In fact the steel was quickly sold to China at lower than market rate.

Stop derailing this thread further. Start your own and show some common manners and curiosity to the thread starter and others that have contributed to this thread.

You clearly have a lot you wish to discuss so do us all a favour and start your own thread.

[StephenJWilson]

Look, StevenJWilson, hint: Use the search feature. Every single thing you've posted so far has already been discussed. Look at the first 3 things after the Hamilton quotemine: Free fall (and using wrong numbers to boot - it's the NIST report with the final figures, not CNN or the 9/11 Commision report), no fires in the core/path of least resistence, and pulverization/powerized. Do a search for all those terms. The point is, the myths behind those have already been refuted.

Search first.

Just because you "buy" the illogical arguments that attempt to debunk.... in no way means they have been debunked.

I am still waiting for logical rebuttals. Name calling is not a logical rebuttal.

[ElMondoHummus]

No, apparently you're the idiot that cannot follow dialogue. The point was that the "director" argued there was no evidence to support "explosions". Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

*Sigh*

Regarding eyewitness testimony of explosions:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

Once again, search all the sources. Don't just fall for the conspiracy peddlers.

[T.A.M.]

You dont seem to want to disagree with the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alaska - Anchorage.

We have federal laws in place that require a crime scene to be "preserved" for investigation. This was not done on 9/11.

No, to be honest (A) I don't give a **** what he said, and (B) You did not provide a link to the quote you referenced with him, and (C) The collapse of the impact floors was likely assymetrical...for an instant or two. What is your point?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

We have federal laws in place that require a crime scene to be "preserved" for investigation. This was not done on 9/11.

Every time I read this particular bit of stupidity, I get this image of a giant brown paper bag, approximately 40 billion liters in size, with a little yellow tape around it saying "POLICE INVESTIGATION -- DO NOT OPEN."

And the collapses were not symmetrical. If this unnamed representative of a university in Alaska (a real powerhouse of science) believes 9/11 Was an Inside Job, he's a complete moron. And yes, I am qualified to make that pronouncement.

[Grizzly Bear]

Look, StevenJWilson, hint: Use the search feature. Every single thing you've posted so far has already been discussed. Look at the first 3 things after the Hamilton quotemine: Free fall (and using wrong numbers to boot - it's the NIST report with the final figures, not CNN or the 9/11 Commision report), no fires in the core/path of least resistence, and pulverization/powerized. Do a search for all those terms. The point is, the myths behind those have already been refuted.

Search first.
Tried it already for him to pick his own thread to nestle into... at this point if he's bringing up material like the "meteorite" I think it's pointless to continue with giving him attention unless he plans on sticking to the subject of the threads he's in. I tried gearing his rants in line with the thread but he's doing a good job in helping to derail.

[Mr. Skinny]

You haven't presented any evidence to debunk.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just because you "buy" the illogical arguments that attempt to debunk.... in no way means they have been debunked.

I am still waiting for logical rebuttals. Name calling is not a logical rebuttal.

Read my above post on the entire context of the Hamilton quote. I did rebut. With fact and logic. I provided the entire context of the quote, and didn't try to cast it as anything other than what Hamilton mean. Which is in stark contrast to what the author of the page did. That page is wrong, period. Go read what I wrote earlier.

[StephenJWilson]

Tell that to the workers at Fresh Kills who sifted through the collected rubble with a fine-toothed comb pulling out wedding rings and bone fragments.

sure, introduce me, and I will. You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

[Sam.I.Am]

Federal Crime Scene laws were disregarded on 9/11. There was no preservation of the evidence (steel from the buildings) to be analyzed later. In fact the steel was quickly sold to China at lower than market rate.

The steel and debris was sifted through and examined at Freshkills by several agencies both local and federal along with some civilian groups. The steel that wasn't from the impact and collapse areas sat there for months before being sold for scrap.

[StephenJWilson]

Read my above post on the entire context of the Hamilton quote. I did rebut. With fact and logic. I provided the entire context of the quote, and didn't try to cast it as anything other than what Hamilton mean. Which is in stark contrast to what the author of the page did. That page is wrong, period. Go read what I wrote earlier.

You did not provide the entire book. Read the whole book.

[ElMondoHummus]

Tried it already for him to pick his own thread to nestle into... at this point if he's bringing up material like the "meteorite" I think it's pointless to continue with giving him attention unless he plans on sticking to the subject of the threads he's in. I tried gearing his rants in line with the thread but he's doing a good job in helping to derail.

Correct. I'm going to report to the mods to suggest that this thread be moderated and the posts be split.

Steven: Post in the proper threads for all these claims. Or start your own.

[T.A.M.]

No, apparently you're the idiot that cannot follow dialogue. The point was that the "director" argued there was no evidence to support "explosions". Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

That has nothing to do with what I asked you for. You stated that there was evidence that contradicted the NIST report. You then provided "Opinion" as the evidence. I then told you that Opinion is not evidence. You then told me that "eye witness testimony" is. I then asked you to provide your evidence, your "eye witness" testimony that directly contradicts the NIST report and asked you to reveal to me which part of the NIST report your evidence contradicts.

Your insult has been reported for violation of the rules on this forum.

TAM:)

[Mr. Skinny]

another waste of my time. g'night.

[StephenJWilson]

The steel and debris was sifted through and examined at Freshkills by several agencies both local and federal along with some civilian groups. The steel that wasn't from the impact and collapse areas sat there for months before being sold for scrap.

You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

[twinstead]

All these bits of "evidence" trotted out here by our newest truther have been dealt with already, and to the satisfaction of any rational person or anybody REALLY interested in the truth.

I suggest you pick one of the things you think is the most compelling and start a thread about it, StephenJWilson. Nobody here has the energy to wack-a-mole with you on this thread.

[Grizzly Bear]

Correct. I'm going to report to the mods to suggest that this thread be moderated and the posts be split.

Already done. ;)
well minus the modding anyway

[StephenJWilson]

That has nothing to do with what I asked you for. You stated that there was evidence that contradicted the NIST report. You then provided "Opinion" as the evidence. I then told you that Opinion is not evidence. You then told me that "eye witness testimony" is. I then asked you to provide your evidence, your "eye witness" testimony that directly contradicts the NIST report and asked you to reveal to me which part of the NIST report your evidence contradicts.

Your insult has been reported for violation of the rules on this forum.

TAM:)

LOL, yea! You mean you're not gonna let me "brainwash" you anymore!!! LOL.... you must be really scared of me!

[T.A.M.]

sure, introduce me, and I will. You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

Please provide proof that the criminal investigators (the FBI) did not preserve what evidence they felt was needed?

TAM:)

[twinstead]

You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

argument from incredulity is a wonderful thing.

[ElMondoHummus]

Already done. ;)
well minus the modding anyway

Oh. Whoops. Okay. Heh. Sorry for the duplicate reports, mods!

Steven: Once again, please post in the proper existing threads, or start new ones. That is simply civil behavior here.

[StephenJWilson]

anyone on here that thinks I'm gonna stick around and keep listening to the illogical arguments and name calling is ridiculous.

Boot me! Please!

[T.A.M.]

LOL, yea! You mean you're not gonna let me "brainwash" you anymore!!! LOL.... you must be really scared of me!

yah your terrifying. Even though the standards are low to start, you are low fruit even by truther standards. Go brush up on your side of the argument and return. Trust me, I am not even that good at discussing the issues compared to some here, and you are easy pickins even for me.

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

Oh. Whoops. Okay. Heh. Sorry for the duplicate reports, mods!

Steven: Once again, please post in the proper existing threads, or start new ones. That is simply civil behavior here.

Civil behavior includes keeping an open mind and actually acknowledging the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and FACTS.

the "official conspiracy theorists" do neither of the 2.

Have a nice life! Hope you dont get caught in the gunfire during the Revolution!

[StephenJWilson]

NYCCAN.org

[johnny karate]

Can we please just report this spam-spewing troll instead of responding to his ridiculous derails?

[T.A.M.]

Civil behavior includes keeping an open mind and actually acknowledging the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and FACTS.

the "official conspiracy theorists" do neither of the 2.

Have a nice life! Hope you dont get caught in the gunfire during the Revolution!

Aren't you gone yet?

Don't let the door....

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Civil behavior includes keeping an open mind and actually acknowledging the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and FACTS.

the "official conspiracy theorists" do neither of the 2.

Have a nice life! Hope you dont get caught in the gunfire during the Revolution!

LOL

You don't appear to be able to investigate yourself out of a paper bag.

Either run away, of PICK A SUBJECT AND START A THREAD!!!!!!!!

No more whack-a-mole

[StephenJWilson]

www.ae911truth.org
www.firefightersfor911truth.org
www.thepatriots.us

[T.A.M.]

Can we please just report this spam-spewing troll instead of responding to his ridiculous derails?

Yah i am done. Sorry, but his low level of truth trolling just got to me...I mean so 2006.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

LOL, yea! You mean you're not gonna let me "brainwash" you anymore!!! LOL.... you must be really scared of me!


I suggest you read the forum rules regarding off topic derails of threads. Your off topic posts and insult have been reported by me and several others here. Your time here will be short I can assure you.

[Sam.I.Am]

You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

So you are saying that the steel is all gone? Is that what you're saying? If so you're very, very ill informed.

[StephenJWilson]

Can we please just report this spam-spewing troll instead of responding to his ridiculous derails?

nice name calling!

[Mr.Herbert]

You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

Did you contact Zacarias Moussaoui's attorney Edward MacMahon? There was a trial and he was convicted. He is spending his life rotting in prison. How can you sleep at night knowing this innocent man will unjustly die behind bars?

Will you be assisting the attorney's for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? You certainly don't want two innocent men to die in jail.....do you?

[StephenJWilson]

I suggest you read the forum rules regarding off topic derails of threads. Your off topic posts and insult have been reported by me and several others here. Your time here will be short I can assure you.

The rules... LOL

Yea, 'cause nothing I"m saying has anything to do with Richard Gage or 9/11 Truth....LOL (SARCASM!)

[ElMondoHummus]

Civil behavior includes keeping an open mind and actually acknowledging the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and FACTS.

the "official conspiracy theorists" do neither of the 2.

Have a nice life! Hope you dont get caught in the gunfire during the Revolution!

I gave you empirical evidence and facts on the Hamilton issue. And I gave you a link to logical explanations regarding the reports of explosions. I can also proceed to any of the other claims you want to tackle. But I will only do so in a controlled manner, not this throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.

If you want to discuss a single issue, then take it to the appropriate thread. For example, we can bump one of the threads discussing the Hamilton quote. Or, we can move onto free fall (that would only require two posts: The OP and the response linking the various rebutrtals). Or the "pulverization" one. But this thread is not the correct one to be doing it in.

What'll it be?

[Locknar]

Enough with the bickering, name calling, and off-topic posts. Thread set to Moderated status until it can be cleaned out.

[StephenJWilson]

Did you contact Zacarias Moussaoui's attorney Edward MacMahon? There was a trial and he was convicted. He is spending his life rotting in prison. How can you sleep at night knowing this innocent man will unjustly die behind bars?

Will you be assisting the attorney's for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? You certainly don't want two innocent men to die in jail.....do you?

Oh, are you claiming that they were found guilty of collapsing the 3 WTC buildings???? of course not!......LOL

Wow... idiot remarks on here!

[StephenJWilson]

I gave you empirical evidence and facts on the Hamilton issue. And I gave you a link to logical explanations regarding the reports of explosions. I can also proceed to any of the other claims you want to tackle. But I will only do so in a controlled manner, not this throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.

If you want to discuss a single issue, then take it to the appropriate thread. For example, we can bump one of the threads discussing the Hamilton quote. Or, we can move onto free fall (that would only require two posts: The OP and the response linking the various rebutrtals). Or the "pulverization" one. But this thread is not the correct one to be doing it in.

What'll it be?

Asymetrical damage of a steel an concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse into its own footprint.

[DGM]

Mr Wilson;
Can you please direct me to the quote where the NFPA supports you (not your quote mined interpretation)? Be careful, I happen to be a member (and I know your full of [rule 10]).

[twinstead]

I gave you empirical evidence and facts on the Hamilton issue. And I gave you a link to logical explanations regarding the reports of explosions. I can also proceed to any of the other claims you want to tackle. But I will only do so in a controlled manner, not this throw-everything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach.

If you want to discuss a single issue, then take it to the appropriate thread. For example, we can bump one of the threads discussing the Hamilton quote. Or, we can move onto free fall (that would only require two posts: The OP and the response linking the various rebutrtals). Or the "pulverization" one. But this thread is not the correct one to be doing it in.

What'll it be?

He doesn't appear to be interested in that. This scattergun type debate is what he wants. Get him in a thread about a single subject among knowledgeable people he's toast, and he knows it.

[StephenJWilson]

mr wilson;
can you please direct me to the quote where the nfpa supports you (not you quote mined interpretation)? Be careful, i happen to be a member (and i know your full of [rule 10]).

n.f.p.a. 921- 19.2.4

[DGM]

Asymetrical damage of a steel an concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse into its own footprint.
Are you serious? Stop now, your way out of your league here and will only embarrass yourself (more).

[StephenJWilson]

Are you serious? Stop now, your way out of your league here and will only embarrass yourself (more).

Oh, you've given up already???

[T.A.M.]

Asymetrical damage of a steel an concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse into its own footprint.

Incorrect. Please provide proof (scientific calculations, formulae etc...) of your suggested hypothesis above.

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

Are you serious? Stop now, your way out of your league here and will only embarrass yourself (more).

You talk the talk, but give up when I call your bluff.... Telling....

[DGM]

n.f.p.a. 921- 19.2.4
I've read it (and I can comprehend it). Why do you lie? (claiming it supports you)

[MarekM]

n.f.p.a. 921- 19.2.4

Would you mind quoting the relevant text?

[StephenJWilson]

Incorrect. Please provide proof (scientific calculations, formulae etc...) of your suggested hypothesis above.

TAM:)

just "incorrect", without an explanation? .... I see you don't know how to debunk this either..... Telling.

[Mr.Herbert]

Oh, are you claiming that they were found guilty of collapsing the 3 WTC buildings???? of course not!......LOL

Wow... idiot remarks on here!


Nice job with the playschool name calling.

"they?" no.. only one. There has only been one trial in the United States. You didn't know that? That's telling.

Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in the deaths of close to 3,000 people. INCLUDING those that were killed when the towers collapsed.

Get it yet?

Now, tell me... what are you going to do for KSM when his trial starts, truther?

[T.A.M.]

You talk the talk, but give up when I call your bluff.... Telling....

Incorrect. Please provide proof (scientific calculations, formulae etc...) of your suggested hypothesis above.

TAM:)

SO you talk the talk, lets see if you can walk the walk. Provide your scientific proof that Asymetric damage to steel and concrete building cannot cause a symetrical collapse into its own footprint.

What, giving up already?

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

Would you mind quoting the relevant text?

You're a member.... You've already stated that. Look it up if you care. I can't make you think, I can only direct you where to look as you requested.

[DGM]

You talk the talk, but give up when I call your bluff.... Telling....
My bluff? Where am I "bluffing"?

[StephenJWilson]

SO you talk the talk, lets see if you can walk the walk. Provide your scientific proof that Asymetric damage to steel and concrete building cannot cause a symetrical collapse into its own footprint.

What, giving up already?

TAM:)

LOL,

Do you disagree with that statement by the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alaska - Anchorage? (Asymetrical damage to a steel and concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse.)

[T.A.M.]

just "incorrect", without an explanation? .... I see you don't know how to debunk this either..... Telling.

I have said it is incorrect because on 9/11 we did watch the buildings collapse relatively symetrically (once they got going), and the damage was relatively asymetrical. Yet despite this, the general conclusion of the scientific and investigative communities was that what we witnessed is what occurred.

Now you are coming here claiming that what we witnessed could not occur, so I am asking you to prove your statement. you are the one who made the statement, not I. The burden of proof is with you.

TAM:)

[StephenJWilson]

Nice job with the playschool name calling.

"they?" no.. only one. There has only been one trial in the United States. You didn't know that? That's telling.

Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in the deaths of close to 3,000 people. INCLUDING those that were killed when the towers collapsed.

Get it yet?

Now, tell me... what are you going to do for KSM when his trial starts, truther?

LOL, convicted? or tortured to plead guilty??? LOL

[MarekM]

You're a member.... You've already stated that. Look it up if you care. I can't make you think, I can only direct you where to look as you requested.

I'm just wondering if you've even bothered to read it.

[DGM]

Would you mind quoting the relevant text?
He would but it would only show it's a "quote mine" that doesn't support his conclusions. Maybe this is my "bluff". Bet he folds.

[StephenJWilson]

I have said it is incorrect because on 9/11 we did watch the buildings collapse relatively symetrically (once they got going), and the damage was relatively asymetrical. Yet despite this, the general conclusion of the scientific and investigative communities was that what we witnessed is what occurred.

Now you are coming here claiming that what we witnessed could not occur, so I am asking you to prove your statement. you are the one who made the statement, not I. The burden of proof is with you.

TAM:)

You have presented a circular argument..... as always... only illogical forms of arguments..... sigh.....

[T.A.M.]

LOL,

Do you disagree with that statement by the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alaska - Anchorage? (Asymetrical damage to a steel and concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse.)

1. You have not provided a link where I can read the exact quote from this individual.
2. The quote, as you have presented it, I believe to be an oversimplification. The initial moments of the collapse were far from symetrical. Once the collapse got going, however, it was in gross terms and appearance, relatively symetrical.
So as an entirety the collapse of the towers was not symetrical.

TAM:)

[Sam.I.Am]

Convicted. By a jury. Using real evidence (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html).

[ElMondoHummus]

This really should be split off into it's own thread, or one of the pre-existing ones dealing with either symmetrical collapse or "fall into footprint" ones. But, I have faith that this can be split off later. Anyway:

Asymetrical damage of a steel an concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse into its own footprint.

No. You say this without citing any reason why. This is wrong for the following reason:

"A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downard upon being weaked or tipped off center to a certain point."


When you observe the twist, you're observing forces acting on the interior in ways the tower was not designed to handle. Search this forum for "load paths" for more information about this. Anyway, the first severance of the supports occurred when the jet hit. That shifted much of the load onto the remaining supports. When those failed, the only direction the upper segment could fall is down. Recall, the upper segments of both towers did tilt. This is readily observable in video. But once the supports failed, the only direction they could go is the direction that gravity was pulling it, and that was down.

Now, that upper segment hit the lower one. The impact of all that rubble overwhelmed the supports, severed the floors from the columns, and removed the vertical columns ability to stand upright. Add to all that impacts in axes other than the completely vertical, and you have column failure. At that point, there's not only anything left to support the building, but there's nothing left to shove the upper segment out to the side; rather, that floor and all it's vertical supports instead become part of the falling mass. The upper segment continues, but is now moving faster (because of gravitational acceleration) and has more mass (the newly failed floor). This continues all the way until the falling segments - at the end, the entirety of the building - hits something that can stop it: The ground.

That is how you get a collapse that is not "asymmetric". You get it from the immediate failures of the floors holding the columns together, which compromises those very columns ability to provide any vertical support. That's what happened. We know the collapse proceeded this way because the state of the debris that was recovered clearly demonstrates it: Floor connections to columns showed signs of having sheared off, columns separated at their connection points, etc. Look for posts by R.Mackey, Architect, Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit, and others I can't recall at the moment for further, more detailed explanations of this.

And a reminder: You really should put these posts in the appropriate threads. Use the search feature to find them.

Next issue? In the appropriate thread, or a new one, please.

[Grizzly Bear]

LOL,

Do you disagree with that statement by the Dean of Engineering at the University of Alaska - Anchorage? (Asymetrical damage to a steel and concrete building CANNOT cause symetrical collapse.)
Regardless of who it is and what position he or she holds an individual stating that is unequivocally unqualified to comment on the matter. The statement assumes that the structural qualities of the built form is irrelevant to how it behaves. It's a stupid comment. I could care less if Frank Lloyd Wright, le Corbusier, Frank Ghery, or Herzog & De Meuron, came out saying this crap. Their professional titles mean nothing if the claim is flat out wrong.

[Crazytimes]

LOL, convicted? or tortured to plead guilty??? LOL

You must know that he admitted to everything even before he was captured, right ? I mean, you have done the research, correct ?

So you would have to know that. Why would he admit to the whole thing before being tortured ? Hmmm......

[triforcharity]

......<snipped>

Does anyone have a clue as to the reason for the photo restrictions, or is this just one more dumb idea cooked up some GS-12 who transferred in from Accounting?

I live not too far from a fairly large Air Force base here in Brevard county. Recently, when I had gone out surfing, I noticed a C-130 doing touch-n-goes. He was flying (what appeared to be ) about 200 feet over my head. I always keep my camera in the truck, and went and retrieved it.

As the plane would come over, I had a great silouette of it against the rising sun. About 5 minutes after I took the pictures, 3 guys from the AFSF(Air Force Security Forces) asking if they could look through the pictures I had taken. I agreed, as I didn't think it would be much of a big deal.

He commented on how great of a pic it was, but that I would have to delete it. I asked why, and he said to prevent any intelligence gathering.

So, I deleted it. Who waas I to argue with 3 guys with big guns??

I think this is the logic. Especially after 9/11, security got very tight. Everyone was on edge, even 6 years after. It doesn't really make much sense, as it can be seen clearly from GoogleEarth.

[triforcharity]

My argument is that the "director" does not know what he's talking about if he thinks there is "no evidence" to "mistrust" the NIST report.

The evidence that the NIST report is WRONG, is (not limited to) the fact that the 9/11 commission members state that NIST is wrong.

So.... there is evidence that the NIST report is wrong, and should not be trusted.

9/11 comissioners are not really in any kind of position to critique the NIST.

Can you provide a link to this??

[triforcharity]

study the NFPA requirements for investigating building failures:

NFPA does not give specific instructions for collapse investigations. That is usually done by the building department In co-operation with the local fire inspectors. Then, if it has caused the death of a firefighter, the local law enforcement will take the lead on its investigation. NFPA will also investigate, but it is only to improve their own codes, and never to prosecute or to determine a specific cause of failure. Your education on NFPA is limited.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cm1LUYyXar0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=NFPA+collapse+investigation&source=bl&ots=p49ZoxpOKl&sig=KIXrW14pe943karKvddF_ROX5yI&hl=en&ei=HeC6SsPZLMSFtgf_3NSmDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9#v=onepage&q=NFPA%20collapse%20investigation&f=false

BTW, here is what a typicaal NFPA investigation report would look like.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/LakeWorth.PDF
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/FIphoenixsum.pdf

The second one is in a STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURE!!! Imagine that?!?!?! HOLY SNIKEYS BATMAN!!


Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:

Fire+Steel framed buildings+no firefighting=buildings fall.


1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.

Der. What is your point?? This points to them being a prime suspect.

2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.

LIKE. SIMILIES!! What you mean to say is that we quotemined those 118 firefighters' statements.

3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.

Yepo, I bet you do. Too bad none big enough to cause any damage to the structural columns of WTC. Also, there are a dozen things that I can name that would go boom in a fire. All of which were common in the WTC.

4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.

Possibility. Correct. They also reported that Camp David and the Capital building had been hit too. First reports are ALWAYS accurate. :rolleyes:

5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.

How else would you describe a tremendous rush of air accompanied by the debris and noise that he encountered?? Oh, that is right....The collapse of the WTC tower.

6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero –remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.—N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 “Exotic Accelerants” states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.

Neither have any evidence to support it. There were no evidence of molten steel. There are 10 different metals that would be commonly found in WTC. Copper and aluminum are two that I know of off the top of my head.

You finally got something right. Too bad NFPA 9211-19.2.4 says that there will be evidence of thermite, and can be seen with the NAKED EYE. Again, quote-mining won't work with me. Especially when it comes to NFPA.

7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

Correct. The only problem is that I can point to 3 different fire-induced collapses in steel-framed structures.

Here they are.
The Kader Toy Factory fire, which occurred on May 10, 1993. Buildings 1, 2, and 3 all collapsed as a result of that fire

January of 1997 (just over four years BEFORE 9-11 occurred), the $15 million dollar Sight and Sound Theater in Lancaster County, Pa collapsed due to fire.

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, in 1980 are documented in the paper by Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections.

HOLY SNIKEYS!! THERMAL EXPANSION???? Who would have thought that something that didn't exist before 9/11 would be the direct cause of a building collapse in 1980.
Linkey
http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/25/steel-buildings-that-collapsed-due-to-fire-before-9-11/

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

No evidence. Der. Would you look for whomever let the tub faucet running after Katrina struck New Orleans?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history?

No evidence.

With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants?

Sir, please see above. Not the first time a building had collapsed.


Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than … they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants!


I can. I also investigate fires in my line of work. There was no evidence. Ever.

Please go back to the TwooferCave. You sir have been owned.

[triforcharity]

why do "official conspiracy theorists" believe the ONLY people that could have done this are people within the U.S. Government????

I want to know WHO did it..... I do not know WHO did it....


What I DO KNOW, is that the 3 WTC building collapses NEED to be investigated for accelerants, and the MECHANISM of collapse needs to be investigated (the 9/11 commission did NOT do this).

So, perhaps people from outside the government did it.... BUT that does not mean I don't want to know WHO!

did I clear this up for you??? I don't know WHO.... but I know WHAT happened.

19 hijackers stole 4 planes, and crashed them into some buildings. Fire+Steel=no good things will come from this.

The 9/11 comission was not tasked with investigating the collapse. That would be the NIST.

You're bringing up some really old stuff. Edited for moderated thread.

[triforcharity]

Yes... very telling, you ask for a quote from an eyewitness.... I give it to you.... then you state basically "who cares"..... very telling.

Sound travels faster through steel than air.

Which is why he heard the first explosion (Actually the same as the second) and a second one.

Edited for moderated thread.

[triforcharity]

sure, introduce me, and I will. You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

Sir, our next exibit is labeled "Reallybigbeam" and we will be bringing it in as soon as the forlift operaters get out of the elevator. Thanks.

[The Director]

The funniest thing out of all of this...

The folks over at 911blogger.com are laughing at me because I do not have an engineering or physics degree...'cause I am sure they are all typing their criticisms from the AIA/MIT break rooms.

[T.A.M.]

The funniest thing out of all of this...

The folks over at 911blogger.com are laughing at me because I do not have an engineering or physics degree...'cause I am sure they are all typing their criticisms from the AIA/MIT break rooms.

People from 911blogger laughing at you is kind of like "people" at a star trek convention laughing at the "humans" passing by, is it not?

I am sorry, but laugh away kooks, just remember to be prompt when your mother calls you to come up from the basement to get your Dinner.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

The funniest thing out of all of this...

The folks over at 911blogger.com are laughing at me because I do not have an engineering or physics degree...'cause I am sure they are all typing their criticisms from the AIA/MIT break rooms.

Oh, I'm sure they are. ;)

[triforcharity]

TheDirector,

Linkey?? I might have a peak and see what can be added to their little bashing.