Loose Change

[WildCat]

Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy nutters. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn+Teller+9%2F11&pl=true) :D

[delphi_ote]

Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy nutters. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=Penn+Teller+9%2F11&pl=true) :D
I love that episode... man it was great.

[rwguinn]

Well, maybe, if they had been severed near the base, they would at least have started to topple, before disintegrating on the way down I assume. Indeed, the upper portion of the south tower did indeed start to do exactly that.

What I noticed at the time was how difficult it was to appreciate how high up both towers were actually hit. There was no clear view of the entire height of the things, because the bottom half or so was obscured by the surrounding buildings which were themselves skyscrapers, leading to the optical illusion that they'd been hit almost amidships. Several commentators presented graphics that fostered this misimpression. It was only those who carefully illustrated the entire height of the towers and then plotted the impacts in the correct positions who gave the right image. And both impacts were very high, in the top 10% of the structures. [ETA: Oops, that's not right regarding the south tower - still, both were hit much closer to the top than the bottom, which was my point.] This was where the damage was done.

Why were they going to topple over, again?

Rolfe.

To topple over, the center of gravity must move outside the supports! that means the center of the building would have to move 110 feet laterally (that's parallel to the floor, for the loosers), minimum. For the whole building to topple, we're only talking 8.5 degrees (which would put the top edge a little bit past the opposide bottom edge. Somebody would probably have noticed that...)

[CptColumbo]

I don't think Superman would have got there in time:

- Hearing the pilots scream with his super hearing (1 minute)
- Finding a clever way to get out of Lois Lane's company unseen (5 to 10 min)
- Finding a phone booth or other hiding place to change (5 min)
- Change into Superman (30 sec)
- Finding the first highjacked plane (5 min)

we're already at 20 minutes.

Don't mess with the "S!"

[Lynx2174]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

It's quite possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices, but they won't be melting anything. IIRC, the military wants to create nanothermite compounds to increase the explosive power of chemical explosives. they must have more energy per gram than nitrates and fuel or something.

and I haven't heard anything about any molten steel like you're talking about. explain please?

(PRACTICAL INTERNET ADVICE: if you don't want to look like a crazy, crazy, sad little man, remember to never make enormous posts filled with tons of useless pictures or links to clearly irreputable sites. remember kilik?)

[Polaris]

Underground fires can burn for a lot longer than those fires at Ground Zero. The Centralia Mine fire in Pennsylvania started burning in 1962 and is still going. http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/405_Report.htm

As for thermite, here's a real life example of it being used in wartime, in Normandy, 1944, Pointe du Hoc:

"There was nobody at the emplacement. We looked around cautiously and over about a hundred yards away in a corner of a field was a vehicle with what looked like an officer talking to his men. We decided let’s take a chance. I said "Jack, you cover me and I’m going in there and destroy them." All I had was two thermite grenades – his and mine. I went in and put the thermite grenades in the traversing mechanism and that knocked two of them out because that melted their gears in a moment. Then I broke their sights. We ran back to the road...and got all the other thermites from the remainder of my guys manning the roadblock and rushed back and put the grenades in traversing mechanisms, elevation mechanisms, and banged the sights. There was no noise to that. There is no noise to a thermite, so no one saw us." (Leonard Lomell, cited in Remembering D-Day, Personal Histories of Everyday Heroes by Martin Bowman, (HarperCollins 2004), pg. 69. )"

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/worldwar2/a/Pduhocarticle_3.htm

Thermite is a silent incendiary. It's not an explosive. In this case it's used to fuse metal together, not cut it apart. And if geggy's guess that the WTC was collapsed by thermite, then the sounds we hear cannot have been explosives. Thermite also wouldn't account for the dust clouds claimed to be evidence of controlled demolitions.

The "molten metal" claimed to be found at Ground Zero at the collapse cannot have been steel, because workers were said to have dipped their buckets in it. If it was molten steel, the buckets would have melted too.

[Rolfe]

To topple over, the center of gravity must move outside the supports! that means the center of the building would have to move 110 feet laterally (that's parallel to the floor, for the loosers), minimum. For the whole building to topple, we're only talking 8.5 degrees (which would put the top edge a little bit past the opposide bottom edge. Somebody would probably have noticed that...)Without doing the sums, it seems to me that might have been possible if damage similar to that inflicted on the south tower had occurred close to the bottom - about where you'd fell a tree. That damage was to one side, and you could see that the part of the tower above the damage begin to topple. However, it was a relatively short segment of tower, and the centre of gravity didn't get far enough over before the whole pancaking effect was triggered.

Given that the damage was so high up, I can see no reason at all for anything to topple over after the initial horizontal force of the plane impacts had dissipated.

Rolfe.

[Belz...]

I posted a link of the rise of the neocons several times in this thread. I thought it was very well laid out with solid proof that these guys are bunch o' sicko's...I'll copy and paste the entire thing cuz I doubt any of you really clicked on the link...

Well, that does it for me! They're sickos!!! It MUST be controlled demolition! :rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

Oh yes. Bush is an evil conniving monster (hey, make that evil stupid conniving monster), so he must be deliberately trying to wipe out the inferior races in Africa by poisoning the children with polio vaccine too!

(Oops, that came over significantly more plausible than the WTC CT, I fear!)

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh yes. Bush is an evil conniving monster (hey, make that evil stupid conniving monster), so he must be deliberately trying to wipe out the inferior races in Africa by poisoning the children with polio vaccine too!

(Oops, that came over significantly more plausible than the WTC CT, I fear!)

Rolfe.But then, it is not exactly hard to think of something that is significantly more plausible than:

1) Planting extensive demolition charges in both WTC towers.
2) Hijacking (or remote controlling, or whatever) planes to fly into the towers at the exact places to coincide with the effect of the demolition charges.
3) Trigger the demolition charges in the stricken and blazing buildings at exactly the right moment while attracting minimum attention from millions of onlookers.
4) Cover the while thing up, afterwards.

Add to this that the evil and cynical perpetrators of this immensely complex conspiracy apparantly are unable to silence a few disorganized loonies running a private webpage disclosing the deal :rolleyes:.

Come to think of it, I find it hard to think of something less plausible.

Hans

[aggle-rithm]

Geggy can't be for real.

He's just having a laugh by making the skeptics here jump through hoops to counter the tens-of-thousands of pieces of so-called evidence. He has to know that all of that rubbish proves absolutely nothing.

I have little doubt that geggy is a complete troll. It's difficult to imagine someone being as mind-bogglingly stupid as he pretends to be and still be able to put on his pants in the morning. However, I treat it as an exercise in logic. Whether geggy's for real or not, I am getting something out of this because there are plenty of people out there like him, and it helps to be prepared to respond with something more eloquent than a slack-jawed, disbelieving stare.

[NobbyNobbs]

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?


5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.

[Manny]

I actually don't get that at all. I've got at least a basic understanding of some of the CTer's lines of questioning. But a lot of their "questions" are either answered or unanswered by either the "standard" story or their conspiracy theory. Both "sides" allege that something happened inside the trade center to make the steel very hot. The sane people think it was the fact that a FREAKING AIRPLANE HIT THE TOWERS and started some fires; the CTers allege that there was thermite or some other magic heat-producing explosive or whatever. It doesn't matter. Both "sides" say there was a heat source and agree that the metal was hot even following the collapse of the towers. How does the metal being hot favor one theory over another (except to make the "explosives only" crowd need to find a heat source like thermite)?

[aggle-rithm]

But is it possible to use thermite compunds in explosive devices?

How do you explain the molten steel that was glowing orange and burned as long as 5 days at the rubble area of where the three buildings stood?

Congratulations for managing to cram so many errors in such a short post.

1. Questions are not evidence.
2. The correct spelling of "compounds" is not "compunds". (A minor error, but you still get full credit!)
3. There was no molten steel, as temperatures never got nearly hot enough.
4. You contradict yourself; in earlier claims you said the buildings couldn't have been brought down by fire because it didn't get hot enough.
5. Steel doesn't burn, except perhaps at the core of a red giant star.
6. There are many things that can cause metal to melt, and controlled demolition is not one of them. Yet you seem to think that molten metal supports your case that there was a controlled demolition.
7. Shifting burden of proof. How do WE explain...? No, it's YOUR wacko theory, YOU explain! And make it a good one, 'cause we know BS when we see it.

[delphi_ote]

Come to think of it, I find it hard to think of something less plausible.
Santa is close, but I don't know any adults who believe in him.

[chipmunk stew]

Come to think of it, I find it hard to think of something less plausible.

HansSome of them are trying their damndest, though. I'm thinking of the "no-planes" contingent, for example.

[aggle-rithm]

I actually don't get that at all. I've got at least a basic understanding of some of the CTer's lines of questioning. But a lot of their "questions" are either answered or unanswered by either the "standard" story or their conspiracy theory. Both "sides" allege that something happened inside the trade center to make the steel very hot. The sane people think it was the fact that a FREAKING AIRPLANE HIT THE TOWERS and started some fires; the CTers allege that there was thermite or some other magic heat-producing explosive or whatever. It doesn't matter. Both "sides" say there was a heat source and agree that the metal was hot even following the collapse of the towers. How does the metal being hot favor one theory over another (except to make the "explosives only" crowd need to find a heat source like thermite)?

It's funny how they keep piling on the unnecessary entities:

CT's: The fire couldn't have caused the collapse, it didn't get hot enough! They must have used explosives, because there was evidence of thermite in the rubble!
Skeptics: Thermite isn't an explosive.
CT's: Right! They used explosives too!
Skeptics: Umm... How did they...?
CT's: There was molten steel in the rubble!
Skeptics: I thought you said it wasn't hot enough--
CT's: They also started a bonfire!

etc., ad nauseum.

[chipmunk stew]

5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.Centralia. I drive through it on ocassion on my way to & from vacation. It's pretty eerie. They have to divert roads every few years; there are streets laid out like a neighborhood, but only one or two houses every few blocks; you can see smoke seeping up from cracks in the pavement in certain places.

[Hellbound]

As for thermite, here's a real life example of it being used in wartime, in Normandy, 1944, Pointe du Hoc:

Excellent story. Thanks Polaris. I was too lazy to go looking up anything on the Internet. I make it a moral point not to spend any more effort on a forum theory than the person did in constructing it ;)

If I remember my Strength of Materials courses from (many) years ago, I think explosives primarily cause metals to fail due to shear forces, rather than tension, compression, or torsion failure (though there can be combinations).

Exactly the point I was getting to, but I wanted to stay away from words like shear or compression. But it is a good point.

To "pulvarize" the concrete with explosives, you have to rely on tension/compression forces. For explosives, this basically means you have to have multiple charges, placed on either side of the concrete in question so you get the two blast waves meeting each other in the middle. Even then, it's only going to "pulvarize" a small area directly between the explosives...the rest of the are ait blows out will be blown out from shear forces, usually in chunks of varying sizes.

Even in large explosions, pieces of detonators and timers (things in contact with or actually inside the explosive) are found routinely. Explosives don't pulavarize easily or characteristically.

[Belz...]

5. Steel doesn't burn, except perhaps at the core of a red giant star.

Or blue ones.

[geggy]

To topple over, the center of gravity must move outside the supports! that means the center of the building would have to move 110 feet laterally (that's parallel to the floor, for the loosers), minimum. For the whole building to topple, we're only talking 8.5 degrees (which would put the top edge a little bit past the opposide bottom edge. Somebody would probably have noticed that...)

Plausible yes, The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not. But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

[CptColumbo]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

You are right about this, and you have yet to prove to us that it isn't crazy.

Assuming, that there was a massive conspiracy, how many people would have to be involved? They would have to plant the explosives, rig the planes to fly remotely, get rid of the original planes with passengers and crew, plant people at ATC and the FAA, pilot the craft into the WTC, set off the explosives, fly a plane into the Pentagon, crash a plane in PA, and keep it all secret.

10 people were with the Vice-President when he shot a guy in the face. The press still got the story.

And your theory doesn't sound implausible or crazy?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.
...

Math showing this?


...
Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...
...

Source of original image?

[Pardalis]

Still waiting for your evidence the US was in on 9/11.

[kookbreaker]

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not. But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...


You can post single, relevant links for your claims. You are not encouraged to post screed and pils of links for political rants.

But I doubt you have any material on molten steel. To date there has been no evidence of molten steel on site. Such 'evidence' as shown is often laughable (such as Dr. Jones pile o' concrete).


Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg


The lack of melted edges, and the fact that cooled molten steel doesn't look like this does not impress me. The material you see could be anything from melted wire covers, to leftover fireproofing material.


The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Its crazy becuase there is absolutely no evidence for it. None!

[hellaeon]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Reminds me of a old aquaintence who was into all this and crossed into David Icke Territory. He said to me and I quote: "Its such an impossible reality because it goes against everything we know. But thats only because we have been taught that way".

Uh huh.

[CurtC]

Plausible yes, The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted.I'm with you so far, and fully agree.
When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees.Now you've lost me. When the top part of the building tipped over, at that point the support mesh that held it up at the impact point was no longer intact, so failed, and let the top part of the building fall. It fell onto the lower part of the building, obliterating its support mesh and destroying everything as it went down. Why are you saying that the building would tip over 8-10 degrees? There's no way that the supports at the point where the "bend" occurs could take that much strain - it just falls down long before it gets to that point.
And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.Have you ever noticed when you see a controlled demolition, that the explosives don't seem to produce much dust, but when the building falls down, there is a huge amount of dust? There is just a hugely greater amount of energy available from the falling building to pulverize the concrete than from the explosives themselves. They are just the triggers, not what does most of the destruction.
NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubbleBS. Prove me wrong.
Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...Thermal residue? What is thermal residue exactly, and why is this picture evidence for it?
The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.It does sound crazy, but if someone comes up with a crazy idea and actually offers good evidence for it, I'm completely willing to change my mind. But you have offered zero evidence that's even hinting at coming close to possibly being slightly mediocre evidence.

[hellaeon]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...


hahahaha good one ginger geggs.

[JPK]

16 ounces. Which makes it 33% heavier than a pound of gold.Unless of course it was a pound of gold dust, in which case it would be lighter.
JPK

[Pardalis]

If there had been explosives we would have all seen it. «We» as in BILLIONS of people. Don't you think whoever put those explosives would risk anyone finding out? And the supposed «squibs» we see appear after the buildings start to collapse. They could be any number of things we have already talked about in this thread.

You said it yourself, you don't doubt that these planes hit these buildings. And in your timeline, there is proof that the 19 highjackers did board these planes. What else do you want?

Face it, the explosives-planted-in-advance theory doesn't work. All you have left is your the-US-government-knew-specifically-about-the-9/11-plot-and-decided-not-to-do-anything-so-that-they-could-invade-Iraq theory, wich is highly improbable, mostly speculative, and really, really hard to prove. On the other hand, we have ample proofs that the Bush administration is incompetent at handling threats and crisis (Katrina), wich is the official reason of why 9/11 happened.

[CurtC]

Actually, a pound of anything else is about 22% heavier than a pound of gold. Care to guess why?

[Manny]

If there had been explosives we would have all seen it. «We» as in BILLIONS of people. Forget the billions of people. The people on the scene immediately after the towers fell and for months afterward were firefighters. People trained to see the causes of fires even when extensive measures have been taken to cover up the cause. There is no way -- no way! -- that anything resembling a controlled demolition could have been carried out without these guys noticing the aftereffects as they searched the ruins for survivors and traces of the bodies of their brothers.

People like greggy are accusing every single firefighter in the city and thousands from outside the city of intentionally and with malice covering up the murder of 343 of their brothers and 2,700 others. Greggy is accusing them all of treason and murder. Greggy doesn't give a crap about accusing our protectors of treason and murder, of course -- he has a crackpot theory to defend.

[Belz...]

it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down.

I think you give too much credit to those support columns. The WTC wasn't designed to handle 20 stories of its own structing coming down on it.

If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.

What ? Larger than the whole building ?

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not.

Perhaps you have difficulty reading: explosives don't melt steel, and there wasn't molten steel at the site.

But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...

That's not true. But you have to post RELEVANT sites, not just conjecture. Also, you have to respect rule 4.

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Er... well... yeah. Sure. If something sounds crazy to me, I'll tend to think it IS crazy. That didn't monopolise too much of your cognitive abilities, did it ?

[geggy]

Still waiting for your evidence the US was in on 9/11.

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

[Ramooone]

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg




once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

click the second video down on that link. not only does the guy talk about how they found 14 floors compacted in 8 feet (which supports the pancake theory) but they show where they're cutting the metal beams jackass.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

So, are you saying that you are basing your hypothesis on motives for a crime, without knowing whether the crime was committed or not? Or do you assume the crime since you see motives?

[chipmunk stew]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg

Evidence of "thermal residue" (whatever that is) from a plasma torch, yes. This is a photo of the clean-up job.

edit: Ramooone beat me to it.

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.
You can say that again.

[geggy]

I'm with you so far, and fully agree.
Now you've lost me. When the top part of the building tipped over, at that point the support mesh that held it up at the impact point was no longer intact, so failed, and let the top part of the building fall. It fell onto the lower part of the building, obliterating its support mesh and destroying everything as it went down. Why are you saying that the building would tip over 8-10 degrees? There's no way that the supports at the point where the "bend" occurs could take that much strain - it just falls down long before it gets to that point.

I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?

Have you ever noticed when you see a controlled demolition, that the explosives don't seem to produce much dust, but when the building falls down, there is a huge amount of dust? There is just a hugely greater amount of energy available from the falling building to pulverize the concrete than from the explosives themselves. They are just the triggers, not what does most of the destruction.

Yes I've noticed. If you understand how building implosion works, the first set of dynamite would explode at the bottom of the building to weaken the structure then explosive charges on every floor would go off at the same time to allow it to fall with gravity hence producing mass volume of dust as soon as concrete hits the ground. WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed. The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.

BS. Prove me wrong.

Google "nist molten pool"

Thermal residue? What is thermal residue exactly, and why is this picture evidence for it?

How do you explain the looks of the steel that was melted?

[geggy]

once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

click the second video down on that link. not only does the guy talk about how they found 14 floors compacted in 8 feet (which supports the pancake theory) but they show where they're cutting the metal beams jackass.


Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...

[Manny]

They already know, greggy. That's where they got the footage. Just like they know about the plane parts at the Pentagon and Shanksville, just like they know about the alleged "alive" hijackers, just like everything else. They know but they're lying to protect their al Qaeda masters. So are you.

[pgwenthold]

once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.


Wow. I mean, absolutenfricken wow.

That _anyone_ could seriously present this as evidence of anything just shows how dishonest CTers really are.

"Somebody thought of that
And someone believed it
Look where it's gotten thus far"

I'm not accusing geggy of being dishonest here, but it does illustrate how folks like geggy will latch on to anything that remotely supports their nutty stories without any semblence of critical thought in the least.

If CTers were in any way honest, they would gang tackle idiots that create these distortions. In fact, they don't. All they do is perpetuate it.

It is to the point where I wouldn't trust a CT site to tell me its raining if I were standing outside without an umbrella getting soaked by a rainstorm.

(As Randi likes to say about certain books, the only reliable information in them are the page numbers, but even then I will count the pages to verify they are right)

[Tirdun]

WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed. The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.

So you are arguing that the evidence for a controlled demolition exists within the very fact that the WTC towers fell as if the steel failed where the building was hit by an aircraft.

Do you understand that? Do you grasp the problem here? The twin towers fell like the building failed. the top portion ... collapsed first JUST as we would expect from a structural failure, and yet this is evidence that they set off a controlled demolition.

[aggle-rithm]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

We don't think you're crazy. We think you're either a troll or a blithering idiot.

[Hellbound]

Actually, a pound of anything else is about 22% heavier than a pound of gold. Care to guess why?

I know why, but the difference seems to be 33% more (or 25% less), unless the ounces are different, too.

[rwguinn]

I know why, but the difference seems to be 33% more (or 25% less), unless the ounces are different, too.

Gold is measured in ounces Troy....

[aggle-rithm]

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...

Wow. Honesty!

Take care that you're not branded a heretic by your "friends". For people called "truthers", they're not very comfortable with the truth. :(

[CurtC]

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.Since I have no idea what you mean, could you please offer a cite from a structural engineer who explains it with math?

Google "nist molten pool"I tried that - are you referring to "The NIST Center for Neutron Research web pages" or "Measurements of the thermal diffusivity of solid and molten metals are performed using ... laser-based dilatometer scanning the surface of the molten pool" or something else there? I didn't see anything that says NIST said there were pools of molten steel. Again, if you could actually offer a specific cite, that would help the discussion along.

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...Congratulations, by the way, on this admission. My estimate of your character has now gone up a notch. I am very interested in the response you get from the other "truthers" when you tell them. I believe it will tell you something about their character. Would you be willing to provide a link when you tell them, or at least post here with the responses you get?

[Regnad Kcin]

...The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff...Truer words were never spoken.

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as...You haven't addressed the numerous refutations of points you've attempted to make so far. Why not go back and cover those first?

[Gravy]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...
Geggy, you're correct. that IS thermal debris, FROM A BLOWTORCH. Uh, see the torch cutting marks? Uh, see the "thermal residue sitting on TOP of the debris?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc1fe0f45c.jpg
I'm actually worried about you, Geggy. There doesn't seem to be any improvement here. You're not down there with the no-planers yet, but you're getting there.

Let me ask you this, has participating here made you change your mind about ANY beliefs you had relating to 9/11? How about this post? Do you agree that the column you pictured was cut by the crews removing debris?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790444fc18b8d552.jpg

[Rolfe]

The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly.What? The entire building would have tilled over? Why? Remember my point about how high up these towers were hit. Even the south tower.

The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force. However, the tower withstood that, swaying back and forward a few times but not toppling. 45 minutes later or however long it was, there was no horizontal force acting at all. So there was no reason for the entire building to tip over.

What we saw was the section of the building above the impact tip over, as the supports failed at the point of impact. There's no reason at all to imagine that the forces involved here would be transferred right down one side of the tower to cause selective failure of the supports at ground level on that side. The building wasn't constructed that way. Either the lower, undamaged part of the tower would have held up, supporting the debris of the tipped-over and unsupported upper part (with some of it falling over the edge to the ground of course), or the structure would fail entirely, causing a pancaking reaction to start at the point of damage. This was inevitable given the structure, and as we could all see, the second consequence was what happened. Given that the south tower was struck relatively low (compared to the north), the failing structure couldn't support the heavier weight of the unsupported top section for so long.I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?No, no, how can you be so obtuse?

As I pointed out above, the building wasn't designed so that the force of the tipping top section would be transmitted right to the bottom on the same side. The structure was going to fail floor by floor, as a whole.

But now you also seem to be saying that granted the pancaking did happen, the tipped-over section should have righted itself on the way down.

Why?

What forces were acting on it to change its attitude? It was tipped over to a certain point when the floors below it began to fail, one after the other, flat, across their entire area simultaneously. Why should it not then go straight down, frozen at the angle it had reached when the pancaking began?

Why am I arguing with this moron?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly.What? The entire building would have tipped over? Why? Remember my point about how high up these towers were hit. Even the south tower.

The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force. However, the tower withstood that, swaying back and forward a few times but not toppling. 45 minutes later or however long it was, there was no horizontal force acting at all. So there was no reason for the entire building to tip over.

What we saw was the section of the building above the impact tip over, as the supports failed at the point of impact. There's no reason at all to imagine that the forces involved here would be transferred right down one side of the tower to cause selective failure of the supports at ground level on that side. The building wasn't constructed that way. Either the lower, undamaged part of the tower would have held up, supporting the debris of the tipped-over and unsupported upper part (with some of it falling over the edge to the ground of course), or the structure would fail entirely, causing a pancaking reaction to start at the point of damage. This was inevitable given the structure, and as we could all see, the second consequence was what happened. Given that the south tower was struck relatively low (compared to the north), the failing structure couldn't support the heavier weight of the unsupported top section for so long.I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?No, no, how can you be so obtuse?

As I pointed out above, the building wasn't designed so that the force of the tipping top section would be transmitted right to the bottom on the same side. The structure was going to fail floor by floor, as a whole.

But now you also seem to be saying that granted the pancaking did happen, the tipped-over section should have righted itself on the way down.

Why?

What forces were acting on it to change its attitude? It was tipped over to a certain point when the floors below it began to fail, one after the other, flat, across their entire area simultaneously. Why should it not then go straight down, frozen at the angle it had reached when the pancaking began?

Why am I arguing with this moron?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, and what is wrong with this perfectly clear and comprehensible explanation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml) of the exact machanics of the collapse of both towers?

Rolfe.

[bob_kark]

Pssst... Hey Gravy, we're patiently waiting for your story here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55890)

Well, maybe I'm not patient, but everyone else is.

[Hellbound]

Gold is measured in ounces Troy....

Yeah, but I thought a Troy ounce and an A-word ounce were the same, just that Troy only used 12 ounces to a pound (compared to 16 in the A-word-that-I-can-never-remember-or-spell system).

[CurtC]

The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force.Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.

[Mercutio]

Yeah, but I thought a Troy ounce and an A-word ounce were the same, just that Troy only used 12 ounces to a pound (compared to 16 in the A-word-that-I-can-never-remember-or-spell system).
avoirdupois

[Rolfe]

Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.I'll take your word for it. I was just thinking about the reports from the people in the towers that there was a very marked sideways movement when the impacts occurred. I thought that if the "bend" was near the foot of the tower, the part above that might sort of collapse/disintegrate sideways.

I don't think the SF cover showing recognisable towers on their sides was ever a realistic scenario!

Rolfe.

[Mongrel]

Not even then. If the building gets enough force to push it sideways from the top, there will have to be some point below that where the "bend" in the building occurs. That point where the bend occurs will be vastly weaker than what's required to hold the weight above, and the whole building would just fall straight down, with the bend being the point where the crumbling begins. The top of the building might then hit a little to one side of the footprint, but nothing like what the phrase "toppling over" brings to mind.


Maybe the Cters have watched too much footage of brick chimneys being brought down with explosives? There's plenty of pictures of them toppling (here (http://www.phillyblast.com/trane.htm) is a good example) and I remember seeing a lot of these either on the news or used as stock footage when I was a kid.

[Rolfe]

Don't they deliberately remove bricks from the base at one side only, to do this? Keeping the structure standing by propping the space with wooden props? Then they set light to the wood and retire to a safe distance. Like felling a tree by chopping out wood on one side of the trunk until it topples.

So, by that logic, the fact that the towers did not go over sideways, as a controlled felling of a tree or a chimney would have done, must prove this wasn't planned or controlled.

How am I doing?

Rolfe.

[Beleth]

That's one of the big hurdles CT provers need to overcome -- the lack of footage or snapshots of buildings collapsing unexpectedly.

It's not enough to say "controlled demolitions do exactly what the WTC buildings did"; you have to be able to say "uncontrolled demolitions do not do what the WTC buildings did."

We know what buildings and chimneys that are supposed to come down look like; what we have very little experience with are buildings and chimneys that were not supposed to come down, but did anyway.

[Pardalis]

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

Are you kidding me? Do you know what an unbiased objective source of information is? oilempire.us is complete trash!

I'm sure alot of connections can be made, between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens (the family, not specifically Ossama), and whoever with whoever. Do you know six degrees of seperation? It's a dangerous game to make connections like these because at one point, everybody is a supsect! We all know somebody who knows somebody. Not that I close my eyes at possible real connections that might be meaningful, the games of power are complex and often messy. I'm sure the US gorvernment has it's hands very dirty. But we have to rely on FACTS, not assumptions and inuendos. Especially not from sites such as the ones you try to refer us to. You have a deep distrust in your government, it's obviously clouding your judgement. I suggest you try to look at every bit of evidence you think you have and sort through wich is real and wich is just shear speculation. Only then I will be willing to listen and read whatever you find, because then you will be convincing and won't look like a bafoon. True investigations must remain objective, that means free of any partisan passion.

[CptColumbo]

That's one of the big hurdles CT provers need to overcome -- the lack of footage or snapshots of buildings collapsing unexpectedly.

It's not enough to say "controlled demolitions do exactly what the WTC buildings did"; you have to be able to say "uncontrolled demolitions do not do what the WTC buildings did."

We know what buildings and chimneys that are supposed to come down look like; what we have very little experience with are buildings and chimneys that were not supposed to come down, but did anyway.

My only experience is with a silo falling over in a storm, but that was totally different variables.

[Beleth]

My only experience is with a silo falling over in a storm, but that was totally different variables.
Exactly. And I bet you didn't have dozens of video cameras trained on it.

[CptColumbo]

Exactly. And I bet you didn't have dozens of video cameras trained on it.

Couldn't find the friggin' battery!

[Polaris]

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

In short you haven't read a single thing posted by anybody here yet. :boggled:

[Polaris]

5 days is nothing. There's a town in Pennsylvania (someone else can find the name, I'm sure) that's been built over a coal mine that's been on fire for *decades*.

I posted a link to a report about this on #1756. The temperatures down there are at least 1000F, with nothing but anthracite coal burning.

[richardm]

Maybe the Cters have watched too much footage of brick chimneys being brought down with explosives? There's plenty of pictures of them toppling (here (http://www.phillyblast.com/trane.htm) is a good example) and I remember seeing a lot of these either on the news or used as stock footage when I was a kid.

And even there you can see that it's breaking up and becoming a more vertical collapse by the time it's done. And that's just a relatively minute chimney that's been deliberately compromised so that it falls to one side.

[Belz...]

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Yeah, but that's not evidence, that's conjecture.

And you apparently haven't learned anything from what knowledgeable people here have told you (see bold.)

[Belz...]

I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

:jaw-dropp

Pfwahahahaha! You don't know the first thing about physics, do you ?

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?

Okay... go on top of a multiple-storey building. Stand on the edge of the roof, then tip over. Why would you land on your feet ?

WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed.

! You can't have your cake and eat it, too, you know ? DID IT or DID IT NOT look like a controlled demolition ?

The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.

I don't draw conclusions based on speculation.

[Rolfe]

Oh yes, and what is wrong with this perfectly clear and comprehensible explanation (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml) of the exact machanics of the collapse of both towers?Just saying. For about the tenth time.

Rolfe.

[NobbyNobbs]

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?


First explain how it could be any other way. But before you do, read up on Newton's 1st Law. Then read up on "torque". Then get back to us.

As a reminder: Newton's 1st basically says that objects keep whatever motion they have unless acted upon by an outside, unbalanced force. In other words, the upper portion of the building, having been tipped, would stay tipped as it fell unless a giant crane/jumbo jet/hand of God reached out and set it upright.

"Torque" can best be described as rotational force, that is, force require to make something (say, the top half of a building) tip over (or back again). Notice again, the use of the word "force". Can you suggest one that would have set the WTC upright again? No? Then there's no reason for it to right itself.

[aggle-rithm]

First explain how it could be any other way. But before you do, read up on Newton's 1st Law. Then read up on "torque". Then get back to us.

As a reminder: Newton's 1st basically says that objects keep whatever motion they have unless acted upon by an outside, unbalanced force. In other words, the upper portion of the building, having been tipped, would stay tipped as it fell unless a giant crane/jumbo jet/hand of God reached out and set it upright.

"Torque" can best be described as rotational force, that is, force require to make something (say, the top half of a building) tip over (or back again). Notice again, the use of the word "force". Can you suggest one that would have set the WTC upright again? No? Then there's no reason for it to right itself.

He's going to counter that resistance from the lower part of the building should have pushed it back upright as it fell into it. This would be true only if the resistance (the "stiffness" of the still-intact part of the building) were greater than the force of the falling upper section. In order for him to demonstrate this, he would have to use actual math, and show his work. I don't think we will be seeing any of that.

I'm sure the top section DID correct itself to some small degree, but it was apparently a negligible effect.

[aggle-rithm]

Here's something for geggy to consider: If the tower was BUILT with the top section tilted, would the original supports be sufficient to hold it in place?

Another thing: If the top section is tilted, then all of its weight when it hits the lower section is concentrated in a smaller area. This would pulverize the concrete slab that forms the floor and keeps the supports rigid, thus compromising the supports and the floor at the same time.

[geggy]

Oh yes, and what is wrong with this perfectly clear and comprehensible explanation of the exact machanics of the collapse of both towers?

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds. Yes, its common sense that the towers would sway back and forth as the planes struck. Under normal circumstance on a highly windy days, it would sway back and forth. But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts. That day was sunny and clear with very little to no wind.

Compare...
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-9.gif
This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

http://www.blackcat.ca/lifeline/KB/images/WTCTERROR,south_tower_collapse.jpg
This was the beginning of south tower collapse. The dust ring surrounding the towers were excessively high in volumes.

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

Here is the funny thing, I've noticed in many public press newspapers and the websites that supports the official theory of the collapsing of the twin tower would post a picture of this with the right side cropped out...
here's one from 911myth.com
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/Collapse.jpg

Here is the full picture at the nearly exact time frame of the collapse...
http://www.geocities.com/iseepee57/wtc2.jpg

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

[geggy]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

click and play the computer animation of the detonation and observe.

Go to any website and find a video of WTC7 collapsing...

Watch the penthouse on the top of the building going down first before everything else came down...

Relatively easy to understand that WTC7 was brought down with explosives, but hard to swallow...

[Shrinker]

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.

[Shrinker]

And by the way, the "cropped" photo isn't the same picture as the "full" one. It was taken from a different vantage point, so you haven't proved that anyone is cropping out part of the image. If you were trying to imply dishonesty, then its time to imply an apology.

[Curnir]

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.

I suspect that one (or several) of the following highly scientific methods were used.

"It stands to reason that"
"Common sense shows that"
"Obviously..."
"No one can convince me that it didn't..."
"That's the only explanation..."

[delphi_ote]

I'm interested in reading how you've calculated the acceleration of these objects based on a single still image.
I think he used the following equation to derive this result:

a=v=x

Where a is acceleration, v is velocity, and x is position. Newton was such an idiot to add all those square terms and time variables.

[Rolfe]

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds...."Most of it"? Like what?It took just 30 seconds for the tower to collapse entirely.That seems to be the only part you're questioning, and we need to know exactly what is meant by "entirely" here. Earlier discussion on this thread has concentrated on the time for the top of the tower to hit the ground (or equivalent, presumably the top of a pile of debris, which come to think of it makes the calculations come out with a rather slower collapse rate than those which assume the entire height of the tower). However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took more like 30 seconds before everything had stopped falling, falling over, collapsing in on itself and so on.

So we don't know that this statement as it stands is inaccurate at all.

And the rest of the "wildly inaccurate" contents? Come on, I'm waiting....

Especially for your reasons why the explanation regarding the behaviour of the steel trusses and the pancaking can't be correct.

Rolfe.

[Timothy]

I contend that geggy placed the charges that brought down the WTC towers. There's absolutely no reason to think he didn't. He clearly knows far too much about what happened and how it occurred. How could he possibly know so much without having a hand in it? I look at the evidence, and I come to that conclusion.

C'mon, geggy. Why did you do it?

Show us the evidence that you weren't involved.

You can't, can you?

(Phhhhttthhhththhbbbttt!)

[delphi_ote]

However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it took more like 30 seconds before everything had stopped falling, falling over, collapsing in on itself and so on.
For that matter, think of how long all that dust was in the air. The amount of time it took to bring the towers down entirely was probably weeks.

I bring this up just to point out that the collapse was not a discrete event by any stretch of the imagination.

[Dragon]

I suspect that one (or several) of the following highly scientific methods were used.

"It stands to reason that"
"Common sense shows that"
"Obviously..."
"No one can convince me that it didn't..."
"That's the only explanation..."Do you think that geggy and Sgt Colon of the Ankh-Morpork Watch are by any chance related? Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me. from "Jingo" by Terry Pratchett

[Belz...]

I cant trust the source you've posted as most of it is wildy inaccurate. The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds.

If I remember correctly it did take several seconds. That wasn't freefall, by the way.

Yes, its common sense that the towers would sway back and forth as the planes struck.

Not common sense. Physics.

But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts.

So ? Their perception was exaggerated because they were in a stressful situation, or because, from inside the building, it would appear to sway more than it actually did. But it DID sway back and forth, and the point was that THIS was the time at which it could have toppled, but didn't.

This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

You've forgotten a very important element. The WTC WAS NOT stripped down in the lower floors. I thought you said it wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. What's your position, here, exactly ? Are you just overloading us with "suspicious" tidbits, or do you have a coherent hypothesis ?

This was the beginning of south tower collapse. The dust ring surrounding the towers were excessively high in volumes.

Why don't we, instead, compare with buildings that fell down but were not demolished in a controlled manner. Huh ? Why don't we do that ?

The debris were forced out at a high acceletrating speed and explosives that has the capability to produce a energentic sonic boom would only force out the debris in a high speed...

Let's work with kiddie diagrams, shall we ?

Floor X+1 ------------------
Office space
Floor X ------------------

Do you agree that in "office space" we have air ?

What happens when X+1 collapses onto X ? Like so:

Floor X+1 ------------------
Floor X ------------------

Where does "Office space" go ? Does air compress and wind up in the rubble ? NO! It's shot OUTwards and carries dust and debris along with it. Get it ?

[Belz...]

I think he used the following equation to derive this result:

a=v=x

Where a is acceleration, v is velocity, and x is position. Newton was such an idiot to add all those square terms and time variables.

Well, of course he wasn't, master. It was just a coverup made in that century by the globalists, already planning the WTC event...

Uh oh... I've said to much again, haven't I, master ?

Number 1 out.

[CurtC]

The towers did not collapsed in 30 seconds.And you base that on what? Did you see how long it took for the steel columns at the lower levels to finish falling?

But in several videos of the plane impacts that I've seen, the swaying of the towers werent as excessive as most survivors claimed to be as if it felt like it was to them during the impacts.You expect to see the towers swaying in videos taken from outside? Why? The swaying would be only inches, impossible to see in a video.

Compare...
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-9.gif
This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.That's a good comparison. The middle section of that building was weakened, then the top portion collapsed down, destroying the whole thing. That cloud of dust coming out was not caused by explosives, by the way. The explosive charges create very little of the dust in an implosion. It's caused by the energy of the heavy building crashing down onto lower sections, which is orders of magnitude greater than the energy in the explosions themselves. Why would you say that the dust around the towers was excessive? How much would you expect, and what are you saying was the cause of the excessive dust?

[chipmunk stew]

For that matter, think of how long all that dust was in the air. The amount of time it took to bring the towers down entirely was probably weeks.

I bring this up just to point out that the collapse was not a discrete event by any stretch of the imagination.And yet I have a guy (http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=876#876) claiming that "...the video shows the effects of physics not the effects of structural engineering. It's a physics problem more than a structural problem..." and "...This is elementary physics..."

[Blackwell]

As many of you have already seen the explosive charges shooting out in a timely pttern in the bottom portion of the building, it was in order to weaken the columns to allow the top part to act as a hammer.

Geggy,
Please take a look at this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616&q=implosion&pl=true

Notice the number of timed charges needed to bring this building down. Now, let's put aside the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the puffs you see in the videos of the WTC towers collapsing are caused by explosions, and answer this question - what makes you think that 3 or 4 randomly placed charges would cause those towers to collapse?

[geggy]

If I remember correctly it did take several seconds. That wasn't freefall, by the way.

YES IT WAS

So ? Their perception was exaggerated because they were in a stressful situation, or because, from inside the building, it would appear to sway more than it actually did. But it DID sway back and forth, and the point was that THIS was the time at which it could have toppled, but didn't.

EXACTLY MY POINT

You've forgotten a very important element. The WTC WAS NOT stripped down in the lower floors. I thought you said it wouldn't have collapsed otherwise. What's your position, here, exactly ? Are you just overloading us with "suspicious" tidbits, or do you have a coherent hypothesis ?

EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES

Why don't we, instead, compare with buildings that fell down but were not demolished in a controlled manner. Huh ? Why don't we do that ?



Let's work with kiddie diagrams, shall we ?

Floor X+1 ------------------
Office space
Floor X ------------------

Do you agree that in "office space" we have air ?

What happens when X+1 collapses onto X ? Like so:

Floor X+1 ------------------
Floor X ------------------

Where does "Office space" go ? Does air compress and wind up in the rubble ? NO! It's shot OUTwards and carries dust and debris along with it. Get it ?

YOU LEFT OUT THE CENTRAL STEEL CORE.

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:

[geggy]

I know many of you have said that the buildings are stripped and furnitures, office supplies are removed before they set off the explosives. One of the reasons for that is to reduce the volume of dust while the building is being imploded.

Demolition crew would wrap chain links and mats around the concrete core to reduce flying concretes as they are blasted.

[DavidJames]

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:It's even funnier when people shout...EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGESwithout a shred of genuine evidence.

Note: making wild a$$ed guesses based on videos is not evidence.

[geggy]

I know many of you have said that the buildings are stripped and furnitures, office supplies are removed before they set off the explosives. One of the reasons for that is to reduce the volume of dust while the building is being imploded.

Demolition crew would wrap chain links and mats around the concrete core to reduce flying concretes as they are blasted.

I also want to mention that someone with great experience in physics would only require basic understanding of building structures for implosions.

[chipmunk stew]

YES IT WAS



EXACTLY MY POINT



EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES



YOU LEFT OUT THE CENTRAL STEEL CORE.

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:According to the evidence, geggy is either 14 years old or a special ed graduate. Any other option is impossible.

[Manny]

According to the evidence, geggy is either 14 years old or a special ed graduate. Any other option is impossible.Perhaps a non-native English speaker. How about it, geggy? Saudi, are you? Are you getting paid for this?

[Blackwell]

I know many of you have said that the buildings are stripped and furnitures, office supplies are removed before they set off the explosives. One of the reasons for that is to reduce the volume of dust while the building is being imploded.

Demolition crew would wrap chain links and mats around the concrete core to reduce flying concretes as they are blasted.

...and yet there is still an enormous volume of dust produced by a planned demolition (please see the video I linked to above.)

How does this reconcile with your contention that the volume of dust from the WTC towers collapse was too high?

[kookbreaker]

I also want to mention that someone with great experience in physics would only require basic understanding of building structures for implosions.

No. That is completely wrong.

Stephen Hawking may be one of the smartest people on Earth, but I wouldn't want to use a skyscraper designed solely by him. Conversely, I would not want quantum aspects of stellar death explained by the guy who put up the WTC. The fields have some overlap, but they concentrate on different things.

Demoltion requires a lot of training, a lot of experience, and a host of structural factors that most physics professors and students only lightly touch on.

So far, the physics people from the Scholars for 911 truth have yet to even demonstrate competent physics, let alone engineering.

JayUtah, on the BAUT forum stated the problems with planted demolitions best:


We're literally talking about coming back from a fire drill and noting that the wall of your office is missing and massive steel structural members behind it have been exposed, the fireproofing cleaned away, and portions of it removed with a torch. What are you supposed to do then, hang the picture of your family from the jagged metal edge and go on like nothing happened?


:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

YES IT WAS



EXACTLY MY POINT



EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES



YOU LEFT OUT THE CENTRAL STEEL CORE.

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:


Send us a postcard from that land of irrationality you're in; because it's clear you've left the country of intelligible posts.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I also want to mention that someone with great experience in physics would only require basic understanding of building structures for implosions.And yet 100% of those with "great experience" in structural engineering agree the towers were destroyed just as they were, and not by controlled demolition, pretty much trumping your "basic understanding" physicist.

[Hagrok]

YES IT WAS
That's hilarious; how can you argue with something like that?

NO IT WASN'T!

Take that!

[NobbyNobbs]

Forget about "common sense", Geggy. The problem with common sense is that it's really not all that common.

Seriously, "common sense" doesn't work in these situations simply because these situations are not all that common. When something very unusual like this happens, it is tempting to compare it to something we are more familiar with, like comparing a "toppling over tower" to a wooden block. But the situations are not analogous, so "common sense" won't apply.

If all we had to do was listen to common sense, then quantum mechanics wouldn't stand a chance of working out. But it does. Consistently and repeatedly.

[strathmeyer]

EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES

I'M CONFUSED, AREN'T CUTTER CHARGES MADE FROM EXPLOSIVES?

[Beleth]

Compare...
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-9.gif
This was controlled demolition, inc's project. The top portion was deliberately brought down with explosives. The bottom portion were cut by workers with charges in order to weaken the structure fdor the top portion to act as a hammer.

http://www.blackcat.ca/lifeline/KB/images/WTCTERROR,south_tower_collapse.jpg
This was the beginning of south tower collapse. The dust ring surrounding the towers were excessively high in volumes. Again, this is an "affirming the precedent" logical fallacy.

You can't compare what the WTC looked like as it fell to what a controlled demolition looks like to conclude that the WTC was a controlled demolition.

You have to compare what the WTC looked like to what an uncontrolled demolition doesn't look like to conclude that the WTC was a controlled demolition.

Otherwise, you end up proving that parakeets are cats because they both have claws on their feet.

[aggle-rithm]

I'M CONFUSED, AREN'T CUTTER CHARGES MADE FROM EXPLOSIVES?

WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?

[aggle-rithm]

YES IT WAS


So the debris falling on the outskirts of the collapse were falling faster than freefall? How?


It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:

Here's something to keep you awake at night: The bottom portion was also thick with concrete and steel. The top portion was also 95% air.

Did I blow your mind? ;)

[Ramooone]

heres a really funny review of loose change

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-04-27/news/Bird.html

[Blackwell]

So the debris falling on the outskirts of the collapse were falling faster than freefall? How?

Come on, aggle - it's obvious! Each of those particles was being controlled by a nanojet! Once the particles landed, the nanobots went to work, breaking down every remaining speck of explosive residue and wiring. Der!

[geggy]

drywalls and everything else but concrete are removed for safer reason and less clean up after the building are imploded. When drywalls, absestos are pulverized into smaller particles, it can be hazardous to your health as you breath in the dangerous toxins inside the fine dust. Which is basically why tens of thousands of volunteers, rescure team and clean up crew are ridiculed with health problems from breathing in toxins from the dust from materials that used to be what was inside the building after the EPA (or was told by the white house) lied to the ground zero crew that the air was safe to breath.

[Shrinker]

drywalls and everything else but concrete are removed for safer reason and less clean up after the building are imploded. When drywalls, absestos are pulverized into smaller particles, it can be hazardous to your health as you breath in the dangerous toxins inside the fine dust. Which is basically why tens of thousands of volunteers, rescure team and clean up crew are ridiculed with health problems from breathing in toxins from the dust from materials that used to be what was inside the building after the EPA (or was told by the white house) lied to the ground zero crew that the air was safe to breath.

Why didn't the white house tell them the air was unsafe? Wouldn't that have been a great way to keep people away from the crime scene? Then they could demolish more random empty buildings, steal more non-existant treasure, and perform more bizarre and pointless deeds.

[chipmunk stew]

drywalls and everything else but concrete are removed for safer reason and less clean up after the building are imploded. When drywalls, absestos are pulverized into smaller particles, it can be hazardous to your health as you breath in the dangerous toxins inside the fine dust. Which is basically why tens of thousands of volunteers, rescure team and clean up crew are ridiculed with health problems from breathing in toxins from the dust from materials that used to be what was inside the building after the EPA (or was told by the white house) lied to the ground zero crew that the air was safe to breath.Which, if true (the screening program hasn't been implemented yet, so we don't know the extent of the Ground Zero health problems yet) then it's horrible and tragic...but it has nothing to do with the cause of the collapses, so what's your point?

[chipmunk stew]

Why didn't the white house tell them the air was unsafe? Wouldn't that have been a great way to keep people away from the crime scene? Then they could demolish more random empty buildings, steal more non-existant treasure, and perform more bizarre and pointless deeds.Either way, the CTs can use it as "evidence"--brilliant!

[Ramooone]

on the Loose change blog theres an interesting link that dyaln says isnt him.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8095#c0105

hmm, he wants us to believe in conspiracy theories cause coincidence is too convenient, well, i guess two dylan avery's both talking about the conspiracy is coincidence also.

[Manny]

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...Hey geggy, didja ever go back to the other "truthers" with this little tidbit? I didn't see anything at the Loosers' site, but perhaps you hang out somewhere else?

[Mr. Skinny]

drywalls and everything else but concrete are removed for safer reason and less clean up after the building are imploded. When drywalls, absestos are pulverized into smaller particles, it can be hazardous to your health as you breath in the dangerous toxins inside the fine dust. Which is basically why tens of thousands of volunteers, rescure team and clean up crew are ridiculed with health problems from breathing in toxins from the dust from materials that used to be what was inside the building after the EPA (or was told by the white house) lied to the ground zero crew that the air was safe to breath.
(bolding mine)

geggy, I'd like to see your source for the statement (bolded) above. I'm a safety engineer, and in my experience with EPA, they don't give a crap about what your employees are breathing, they're only worried about what air and groundwater pollution you're creating.

Anyhow, I've never had them come in and "advise" that the "air was safe to breathe". Compliance agencies like EPA and OSHA inspect your location, and if the air is safe to breathe/spew out your stack, they do nothing. If the air is not safe to breathe/spew out your stack, they issue a citation and recommend a fine. OSHA and EPA are not advisory groups for employers. They are inspectors/regulators to see if you are complying with their regulations.

While I agree that a lot of potentially harmful air contaminants were spewed out during the collapse that could cause health problems, I'd like to see your source for the EPA (or OSHA) advising anyone that the air was "safe to breathe"

Edit: spelling

[Stellafane]

Hi geggy. I know this has been asked in various forms in this and other threads, but shucks, if CT'ers can repeat themselves over and over, offering the same discredited "evidence" and asking the same throughly answered questions ad nauseum, why can't I? Let's just say for the sake of argument, you and your fellow CT'ers are somehow correct, and the U.S. government really did orchestrate 9/11, and Bush and his henchmen are unspeakably evil, all-powerful, and unprecendently single-minded. What, exactly, are we supposed to do about it? Post on forums? Make "documentaries"? Vote Democrat? I mean, if our government is that efficient and that murderous, and that willing and able to stop at nothing to get what it wants, what's the point? Haven't we already lost? Why are you even still in this country if that's what you really believe? Me, I'm here because I think everything ever presented by the Loose Change folks and all their fellow-travellers combined is total codswallop (pardon my language) and would be laughable if it weren't so offensively insulting to the memory of those who died. But what about you?

Like your buddies at Loose Change like to say, hey, I'm just asking...

[Belz...]

YES IT WAS

Please provide evidence that the WTC fell at free-fall speeds. This would mean that the floors below were non-existent when the "hammer" fell, though I'd think that, even if they were there, they wouldn't provide any significant resistance. Still, back up your claim.

EXACTLY MY POINT

No... no it wasn't.

EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WERE USED, NOT CUTTER CHARGES

Same difference. Plus, you have no evidence that explosives were used. Explosives don't produce that volume of smoke, as indicated earlier. The pankaking of floors does.

YOU LEFT OUT THE CENTRAL STEEL CORE.

A failing building's a failing building.

It's funny when people say the top portion is heavy and thick with concrete and steel yet the bottom portion of the building is 95 percent air. :boggled:

Do you deny that pankaking floors will expell air to the sides, or do you agree ?

[geggy]

While I agree that a lot of potentially harmful air contaminants were spewed out during the collapse that could cause health problems, I'd like to see your source for the EPA (or OSHA) advising anyone that the air was "safe to breathe"

Edit: spelling

Here ya go
http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/963407.asp?s=HEALTH

I know you guys have rights to mock me on my hypothesis of the strange collapsing of WTC as it is my weakest point because I have no experience in engineering field, therefore I'm not keen on speaking technical launguage of engineering. But it seems too clear that the buildings came down with explosives. But do not fork with me on the other anomalies surrounding sept 11.

I remember one of you asked me to provide a link proving that both the nist and controlled demoliton inc addressed the molten steel pool in the rubble of ground zero. I want to remind you again that I began to look into the anomalies surrounding sept 11 starting in 2002. It's extremely difficult now to find any real source because articles and solid info have been dissappearing off the face of the internt and fake info's are planted to muddle in with the real sources...

However I came across a message board and thankfully one of the posters copy and pasted some good info that you should check out...

Peter Tully, the president of tully construction and Mark Loizeaux the president of controlled demolition, inc both who worked at the ground zero during clean up addressed the molten steel pool in the rubble.

Name of the poster is twitchy.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread9247/pg12

Unfortunately I can't find any source proving that nist did acknowledge the molten steel pool but never analyzed it.

Also a good artcle here for the people who use ad homien, "conspiracy theorist" smearing tactics...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/03/29/notes032906.DTL

It's not in my intention to convince any of you that sept 11 was an inside job. That's just my gut intuition. But it's in my intention to try and convince you to doubt the official story of sept 11. There is just too many information availble out there that contadicts the official story and I'd recommend you to do your own research.

[Pardalis]

It's not in my intention to convince any of you that sept 11 was an inside job. That's just my gut intuition. But it's in my intention to try and convince you to doubt the official story of sept 11.

Intuition is unreliable. FACTS are.

There is just too many information availble out there that contadicts the official story.

Still waiting for that information.

[Pardalis]

It's extremely difficult now to find any real source because articles and solid info have been dissappearing off the face of the internt and fake info's are planted to muddle in with the real sources...


Man, you need medical help.

[Blackwell]

But do not fork with me on the other anomalies surrounding sept 11.

Oh, trust me - you won't be "forked" with here. You (in the form of your theories) will be sliced, diced, and chopped into unrecognizable chunks, fed into a meat grinder, and served warm - the fence sitters will rightfully pass on the dish, while your fellow CTers will choke it down, contract a nasty virus, and quietly slip away.

[rwguinn]

......

I remember one of you asked me to provide a link proving that both the nist and controlled demoliton inc addressed the molten steel pool in the rubble of ground zero. I want to remind you again that I began to look into the anomalies surrounding sept 11 starting in 2002. It's extremely difficult now to find any real source because articles and solid info have been dissappearing off the face of the internt and fake info's are planted to muddle in with the real sources...
Ok, Delphi
Which of you incompetents let real stuff get posted in the first place. Now the cover-up looks like a cover-up! Looks like the mind-rays will be necessary.

However I came across a message board and thankfully one of the posters copy and pasted some good info that you should check out...

Oh, yeah. Doctored, modified, copied, corrupted.. Absolutely no chain of custody...



Peter Tully, the president of tully construction and Mark Loizeaux the president of controlled demolition, inc both who worked at the ground zero during clean up addressed the molten steel pool in the rubble.

Name of the poster is twitchy.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread9247/pg12

Unfortunately I can't find any source proving that nist did acknowledge the molten steel pool but never analyzed it.

Also a good artcle here for the people who use ad homien, "conspiracy theorist" smearing tactics...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/03/29/notes032906.DTL

It's not in my intention to convince any of you that sept 11 was an inside job. That's just my gut intuition. But it's in my intention to try and convince you to doubt the official story of sept 11. There is just too many information availble out there that contadicts the official story and I'd recommend you to do your own research.
sigh.
same-old recycles lies, refuted o'er and o'er again..

[Pardalis]

Oh, trust me - you won't be "forked" with here. You (in the form of your theories) will be sliced, diced, and chopped into unrecognizable chunks, fed into a meat grinder, and served warm - the fence sitters will rightfully pass on the dish, while your fellow CTers will choke it down, contract a nasty virus, and quietly slip away.

Wow, funny to read that next to such a cute avatar. LOL

[geggy]

Let's just say for the sake of argument, you and your fellow CT'ers are somehow correct, and the U.S. government really did orchestrate 9/11, and Bush and his henchmen are unspeakably evil, all-powerful, and unprecendently single-minded. What, exactly, are we supposed to do about it? Post on forums? Make "documentaries"? Vote Democrat? I mean, if our government is that efficient and that murderous, and that willing and able to stop at nothing to get what it wants, what's the point? Haven't we already lost? Why are you even still in this country if that's what you really believe? Me, I'm here because I think everything ever presented by the Loose Change folks and all their fellow-travellers combined is total codswallop (pardon my language) and would be laughable if it weren't so offensively insulting to the memory of those who died. But what about you?

First of all I don't think the bush administraion are evil. They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil. Nothing corrupts a soul more than greed and a bottle of jameson.

I think my purpose since that I clearly see something is wrong with the official story of sept 11, I'm willing to contribute to the society by convincing others not to believe in the official story and multiply the movement into a larger group demanding to reopen a more honest and serious investigation by independant investigators that has no ties to the US government. The reason why I'm still here is because I like this country too much just to pack up and leave. I'm willing to protect it from the bush regime to prevent them for doing any further damage to the US as well as the rest of the planet with their lies, lootin' rampage, destructive behavoir and imcompetence. And if you don't see the soulless, convinning bast...s that they are, then you're must be crazy . I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.

[Pardalis]

First of all I don't think the bush administraion are evil. They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil. Nothing corrupts a soul more than greed and a bottle of jameson.

So what is this evil? Exactly?

I'm willing to protect it from the bush regime to prevent them for doing any further damage to the US as well as the rest of the planet with their lies, lootin' rampage, destructive behavoir and imcompetence. And if you don't see the soulless, convinning bast...s that they are, then you're must be crazy . I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.

So you admit that you are using the deaths of 3000 people for somekind of political agenda, a revolution? A New World Order of your own? Aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing the Bush administration of doing?

[Stellafane]

...And if you don't see the soulless, convinning bast...s that they are, then you're must be crazy...

Hi geggy. Personally, I don't believe I'm crazy (although it could be argued that those who are crazy are always the last to realize it). But I certainly would be crazy if I truly believed my government callously killed nearly 3000 of its own innocent citizens, for reasons that can be at best described as convoluted and murky, and I still chose to remain in this country anyway.

[Gravy]

I think my purpose since that I clearly see something is wrong with the official story of sept 11, I'm willing to contribute to the society by convincing others not to believe in the official story and multiply the movement into a larger group demanding to reopen a more honest and serious investigation by independant investigators that has no ties to the US government.
So who would you choose to do this investigatiion?
And are you actually aware of all the organizations that have participated? For example, some of the organizations involved in the investiagtion of WTC 7 are:

–The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
–The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
–The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
–The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
–The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
–The Structural Engineers Association of New York

Are these groups suspect to you? And if so, how would you replace them? Would you be more comfortable if the investigation was not conducted by Americans?
The reason why I'm still here is because I like this country too much just to pack up and leave. I'm willing to protect it from the bush regime to prevent them for doing any further damage to the US as well as the rest of the planet with their lies, lootin' rampage, destructive behavoir and imcompetence.
Has your research turned up evidence that anyone outside of the "official suspects" is complicit in the events of 9/11 in any way? That's what we're talking about here.

[geggy]

So what is this evil? Exactly?

temptation

So you admit that you are using the deaths of 3000 people for somekind of political agenda, a revolution? A New World Order of your own? Aren't you doing the exact same thing you are accusing the Bush administration of doing?

Hahaha oh man you made me laugh. That's a messed up way of looking at it. If my gut intuition is right, then we get justice for those who were killed in sept 11 as there hasn't been any since osama, the supposedly perpetrator, hasn't yet been caught and I don't think the bush administration has any real interest in attempting to capture him.

[Pardalis]

They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil.

What is this evil you are talking about geggy? Temptation of what?

[Gravy]

temptation



Hahaha oh man you made me laugh. That's a messed up way of looking at it. If my gut intuition is right, then we get justice for those who were killed in sept 11 as there hasn't been any since osama, the supposedly perpetrator, hasn't yet been caught and I don't think the bush administration has any real interest in attempting to capture him.

How about Moussaoui? Do you think he's innocent?

[Pardalis]

Hahaha oh man you made me laugh. That's a messed up way of looking at it.

you seem to be the one having a messed up way of looking at reality...

(...)our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran, the theft of trillions of dollars from the tax base to transfer to the top tenth of a percent or so of our population, the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

[Pardalis]

If my gut intuition is right, then we get justice for those who were killed in sept 11 as there hasn't been any since osama, the supposedly perpetrator, hasn't yet been caught.

So according to your intestines, Ossama Bin Laden wasn't the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks? So what about your supposed evidence of the Bushs being in cahoots with the Bin Ladens? What was that about then?

[TjW]

<snip>
Which is basically why tens of thousands of volunteers, rescure team and clean up crew are ridiculed with health problems from breathing in toxins from the dust from materials that used to be what was inside the building after the EPA (or was told by the white house) lied to the ground zero crew that the air was safe to breath.
Really? Who is ridiculing them about their health problems?

[CptColumbo]

temptation



Hahaha oh man you made me laugh. That's a messed up way of looking at it. If my gut intuition is right, then we get justice for those who were killed in sept 11 as there hasn't been any since osama, the supposedly perpetrator, hasn't yet been caught and I don't think the bush administration has any real interest in attempting to capture him.
I'm sorry, are you saying that since we can't find Osama Bin Laden, we should accuse someone easier to catch?

If so, that's the craziest f---ing thing I've ever heard!

[kookbreaker]

Here ya go
However I came across a message board and thankfully one of the posters copy and pasted some good info that you should check out...

Peter Tully, the president of tully construction and Mark Loizeaux the president of controlled demolition, inc both who worked at the ground zero during clean up addressed the molten steel pool in the rubble.



Yes. I have heard this too. Unfortuneately for you, the information was already second or third hand by the time it got to them.


Name of the poster is twitchy.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread9247/pg12

Unfortunately I can't find any source proving that nist did acknowledge the molten steel pool but never analyzed it.



Because NIST cannot analyze something that exists soley in the imagination of CTs.

[Pardalis]

I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.

Seeing 9/11 as a tool, THAT'S A MESSED UP WAY OF SEEING THINGS!

The Bush administration used it for their political agenda, SO ARE YOU!

[chipmunk stew]

So who would you choose to do this investigatiion?
And are you actually aware of all the organizations that have participated? For example, some of the organizations involved in the investiagtion of WTC 7 are:

–The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)
–The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)
–The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
–The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
–The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)
–The Structural Engineers Association of New York

Are these groups suspect to you? And if so, how would you replace them? Would you be more comfortable if the investigation was not conducted by Americans?

Has your research turned up evidence that anyone outside of the "official suspects" is complicit in the events of 9/11 in any way? That's what we're talking about here.Bump, for geggy

[geggy]

FEMA and American society of civil engineers both have ties, don't they? FEMA is considered a governemnt agency, I bet they cherry picked those on the list.

Polaris...sorry to say this but you're an idiot. And back up to one of my older posts on "conspiracy theory" in this thread and you'll see that in which you've copied and pasted what you thought I said, and I didn't, was written by a reporter who is affiliated with informationclearinghouse.info. I don't agree on most part of what was written although it may hold true in Iraq. Do you realize the US is falling deeper into debt at nearly 9 trillion dollars, up from 2.6 trillion dollars, since bush took power? And guess who is stuck with paying that debt. Federal spending is currently at a whopping 26 trillion dollars by the bush administration alone. From the first president to bill clinton, only 20 trillion was spent. Don't you find that alarming? Oh you're canadian right? What does it matter to you anyway

Stellafane...like I said earlier in this thread, it doesn't make you crazy if you think sept 11 was a falseflag terrorism, it only sounds crazy to you and actually not an impossibility. Falseflag terrorism have been performed all over the world several times in the past, why not in the US? Funny thing about the london bombing. al Qaeda was accused of the attack but investigators came to a conclusion that Qaeda had nothing to do with it. It's all over the BBC website.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

First of all I don't think the bush administraion are evil. They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil. Nothing corrupts a soul more than greed and a bottle of jameson.

I think my purpose since that I clearly see something is wrong with the official story of sept 11, I'm willing to contribute to the society by convincing others not to believe in the official story and multiply the movement into a larger group demanding to reopen a more honest and serious investigation by independant investigators that has no ties to the US government. The reason why I'm still here is because I like this country too much just to pack up and leave. I'm willing to protect it from the bush regime to prevent them for doing any further damage to the US as well as the rest of the planet with their lies, lootin' rampage, destructive behavoir and imcompetence. And if you don't see the soulless, convinning bast...s that they are, then you're must be crazy . I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.


If you are so keen on helping America; stop looking for bogeymen to chase after and do something truly productive: volunteer at a shelter, lend time to Habitat for Humanity, join Big Brothers/Big Sisters, go pick up litter, read to kids at the local library, or; if you must do something in the political arena; join a PAC or NGO that is having real, demonstrateble, effects on the government.

[Pardalis]

Polaris...sorry to say this but you're an idiot. And back up to one of my older posts on "conspiracy theory" in this thread and you'll see that in which you've copied and pasted what you thought I said, and I didn't, was written by a reporter who is affiliated with informationclearinghouse.info.

I'm sorry but by the way you posted it, without commenting on it or sourrunding them with these symbols (« »), you fully endorsed it.

I don't agree on most part of what was written

Then why post it as evidence????

(...) if you think sept 11 was a falseflag terrorism, it only sounds crazy to you and actually not an impossibility.

That’s absolutely true. For once you’re talking sense. But you have to prove it IS a possibility.

geggy, you seem to have a solid opinion about US politics, that's you're right and I acknowledge it. BUT THIS THREAD CONCERNS THE 9/11 ATTACKS AND THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. If you want to start a thread regarding the Bush administration and it's flaws, go right ahead, I'll probably agree with most of what you'll say. But so far, nothing of what you have said as anything to do with 9/11.

Oh you're canadian right? What does it matter to you anyway

It's true I'm a Canadian, Quebecer, and it does matter to me that you liars and paranoid freaks dessicrate the memory of the innocent lives that have been lost on september 11 2001. It’s an insult to intelligence. 9/11 was an attack on the civilised world (wich includes Québec BTW) and an unprecedented coup against the human will and freedom.

[Pardalis]

It's pardalis by the way.

[geggy]

Oh I'm sorry panteris, since I'm new to this board, I'll try my best to make it clearer that when I'm posting a snippet from an article, I will use that symbol you've displayed. I'm just more accustomed to the php boards. Because I said I don't agree with most of the article doesn't mean I don't agree with the entire points made in the article.

The reason I called you an idiot was because you're accusing me of provoking the victims of sept 11 as the reason to overthrow the bush regime. I don't see how it is disrespectful to the victims of the attacks to think the bush regime may have had hands in the tragedy. I think it's actually more respectful to the victims to find who the real culprit is so justice can be brought to the victims. Now imagine if someone close to you was killed, the person who is your father (government) that did the deed pointed someone else as the culprit to divert the attention away from himself, it's most likely you will fall for it because, well, it was your father who told you. The accused (osama) denies it and said he was innocent, and you're finding clues that something is not adding up. The clues leads to your father, and you refuse to believe it, you're experiencing a full blown suspension of belief. Then it becomes self evident that your father may have been the real culprit and you accept the fact.

Tomorrow when I get to work at my computer I will post the strange anamolies surrounding osama bin laden and we can finally talk about more of my "paranoid lies" relating to 911.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Tomorrow when I get to work at my computer...May I ask, what do you do for a living?

[Pardalis]

Oh I'm sorry panteris

it's PARDALIS ! lol:D

Because I said I don't agree with most of the article doesn't mean I don't agree with the entire points made in the article.

When you post something, you have to tell us what this post means to you, you have to comment it, not just throw it at us. But I get your point.

The reason I called you an idiot was because you're accusing me of provoking the victims of sept 11 as the reason to overthrow the bush regime.


I understand, I will also avoid name calling in the future. But you do have to admit that you said this:

I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.


The clues leads to your father, and you refuse to believe it, you're experiencing a full blown suspension of belief. Then it becomes self evident that your father may have been the real culprit and you accept the fact.

You have to know that these clues must be verified and not be just speculations. Understand that for us non-Believers (skeptics), we do not take every claim to be a fact until it is proven, and that intuition isn't evidence.

Tomorrow when I get to work at my computer I will post the strange anamolies surrounding osama bin laden and we can finally talk about more of my "paranoid lies" relating to 911.

Looking forward to it, I only wish it will be links from irrefutable and objective sources.;)

[Dr Adequate]

al Qaeda was accused of the attack ... Obviously they would be the prime suspects in the eyes of the media. However, instead of leaping to this facile conclusion, the government held an investigation.

... but investigators ... These would be investigators who are not part of TEH CONSPIRACY, yes? Despite working for the British Government? Right?

... came to a conclusion that Qaeda had nothing to do with it ... Obviously, there is more than one Muslim terror group in existence.

It's all over the BBC website. So you say. However, I just searched the BBC website for the term "London bombings" and found this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4208250.stm). A feat of research which took just over ten seconds.

There are several indications of the al-Qaeda connection.

Firstly, the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera, which received the tape, attributes it to "the al-Qaeda organisation."

Second, the fact that Khan's statement is accompanied on the tape by one from Zawahri. This strongly supports the view that Khan must have made contact with al-Qaeda elements, probably when he was in Pakistan from November last year to February this year.

It is possible, even probable, that Khan made the tape in Pakistan and came back to the UK determined on his course.

Third, Khan refers on the tape to the al-Qaeda leadership when he talks about "today's heroes beloved Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi". Zarqawi is the leader of the al-Qaeda faction in Iraq.Before you told us what was "all over the BBC website", perhaps you should have looked at the BBC website.

[chipmunk stew]

FEMA and American society of civil engineers both have ties, don't they? FEMA is considered a governemnt agency, I bet they cherry picked those on the list.ASCE is independent, as are the rest on the list. Look them up.

But regardless, the question was, who would you choose to conduct the investigation?

[Belz...]

I know you guys have rights to mock me on my hypothesis of the strange collapsing of WTC as it is my weakest point because I have no experience in engineering field, therefore I'm not keen on speaking technical launguage of engineering. But it seems too clear that the buildings came down with explosives.

You admit that you don't know anything about structural engineering. Don't you think this means that what "seems too clear" may be wrong ?

It's extremely difficult now to find any real source because articles and solid info have been dissappearing off the face of the internt and fake info's are planted to muddle in with the real sources...

"I can't provide any evidence for a conspiracy because the conspiracy is covering the evidence up."

That doesn't work, bloke.

Unfortunately I can't find any source proving that nist did acknowledge the molten steel pool but never analyzed it.

Maybe this is because they never aknowledge it. I never saw any molten steel at the site. Can you provide evidence for its existence ?

It's not in my intention to convince any of you that sept 11 was an inside job. That's just my gut intuition.

It's my gut intuition that my consciousness is special, that the earth is flat, that the world is composed of inanimate things that nonetheless have a will of their own, that I'm beign watched right now, and that when I feel better, I am better. But gut feelings are crap. They don't tell you anything about the real world.

There is just too many information availble out there that contadicts the official story and I'd recommend you to do your own research.

Funny man. Isn't it obvious that a lot of people here HAVE done just that ?

[Belz...]

First of all I don't think the bush administraion are evil. They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil. Nothing corrupts a soul more than greed and a bottle of jameson.

Could you provide a clear motive ?

So far, you've given us gut feelings, which are pointless, and mysterious "factoids" that don't point to any conclusion. Any "evidence" presented was debunked.

So, what is it ? Are you trolling, or do you have a coherent hypothesis ?

Merely saying that the government did it because they are nefarious and corrupted is not enough. Perhaps for you, conjecture can be used to construct MORE conjecture, but here we need facts.

Hahaha oh man you made me laugh. That's a messed up way of looking at it. If my gut intuition is right, then we get justice...

No. If your intuition is right, you'd be dead by now, as would anyone on the loose change forum.

[Belz...]

FEMA and American society of civil engineers both have ties, don't they? FEMA is considered a governemnt agency, I bet they cherry picked those on the list.

As Chipmunk said, which organisations would do ?

Don't you find that alarming? Oh you're canadian right? What does it matter to you anyway

That's right. We Canadians never care about anything outside our own country. Oh, wait, no...

Falseflag terrorism have been performed all over the world several times in the past, why not in the US? Funny thing about the london bombing. al Qaeda was accused of the attack but investigators came to a conclusion that Qaeda had nothing to do with it. It's all over the BBC website.

That wouldn't mean that there wasn't terrorism involved, and the fact that there WAS an investigation that uncovered that is a good thing, right ?

The reason I called you an idiot was because you're accusing me of provoking the victims of sept 11 as the reason to overthrow the bush regime.

Those were your words.

I don't see how it is disrespectful to the victims of the attacks to think the bush regime may have had hands in the tragedy.

It is if they didn't. Think about it. That's why you must have proof. Otherwise you're just hurting these people more and antagonising people towards the government for no reason.

Now imagine if someone close to you was killed, the person who is your father (government) that did the deed pointed someone else as the culprit to divert the attention away from himself, it's most likely you will fall for it because, well, it was your father who told you. The accused (osama) denies it and said he was innocent, and you're finding clues that something is not adding up. The clues leads to your father, and you refuse to believe it, you're experiencing a full blown suspension of belief. Then it becomes self evident that your father may have been the real culprit and you accept the fact.

FACT. Yes.

[pgwenthold]

I've not contributed a lot to this thread, since I don't know a lot about any of it, but I have seen some things here that really bother me about the "conspiracy theorists"

For starters, the fact that some of their information is blatently wrong. Not just an issue of interpretation, but showing evidence of deceit. That "molten steel" picture that was posted is the best example of where some CTer somewhere has been dishonest. There are other examples of just blatent falsehoods from the CT side. I haven't seen any exposed "lies" of the standard model. I see that CTers disagree with interepretation, but no misrepresentation of simple facts. The fact that the CT folks are making things up bothers me alot.

Then there is the whole "why" aspect. The one that I recall the best is the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Someone asked a really interesting question that I haven't seen answered:

Why in the world would the government hide a controlled demolition of WTC7 as part of 9/11, when they went on later and did a deliberate demolition of all the other buildings that were damaged beyond repair? That just doesn't make any sense at all. Why not just destroy WTC7 along with the rest of the buildings? Even if there were "sensitive material" in it, 1) the fact that it is a hazard zone means that it is off limits to everyone, so who's gping to see it? The only people who have access are those who can access the information in the rubble, anyway. Besides, if you want to destroy the material, 2) why not just send it through the shredder? A lot more effective. Of course, 3) most of the contents were already destroyed by the fire raging out of control, so there wasn't going to be anything to find but charcoal.

So why destroy the building and cover it up?

ETA: BTW, there is an article about the Loosers in the USA Today. They talk a little about the popularity of the conspiracy theories, but don't take it seriously. They point out that most of the claims are refuted by facts (and even cite the Journals about the weakening of steel) and note that inconvenient facts are just part of the coverup.

[aggle-rithm]

The reason why I'm still here is because I like this country too much just to pack up and leave. I'm willing to protect it from the bush regime to prevent them for doing any further damage to the US as well as the rest of the planet with their lies, lootin' rampage, destructive behavoir and imcompetence.

Plus, if you left this country, you would still have to deal with the lies, lootin', rampage, etc., of the country you move to. And you would probably not have the civil liberties you enjoy in the US (Just ask Randi why he left Canada!).

And if you don't see the soulless, convinning bast...s that they are, then you're must be crazy . I just think sept 11 may be the best tool to overthrow them.

A word of advice -- intent to commit treason is not something that you want to blab about on the internet.

[Mongrel]

Let's work with kiddie diagrams, shall we ?

Floor X+1 ------------------
Office space
Floor X ------------------

Do you agree that in "office space" we have air ?

What happens when X+1 collapses onto X ? Like so:

Floor X+1 ------------------
Floor X ------------------

Where does "Office space" go ? Does air compress and wind up in the rubble ? NO! It's shot OUTwards and carries dust and debris along with it. Get it ?

I've always thought a good, simple and graphic demonstration to show the above effect is;

Take a pack of gelatine dessert (whichever flavour you prefer) and follow packet instructions to make and set, overnight is best.

Take a serving spoon and place a large, solid piece of dessert in your left hand. Your left hand should be at about stomach height with the palm facing the ceiling

Keeping your left hand still bring down your right hand as if clapping. Repeat as often as desired.

Clean up mess and eat remainder of dessert.

[aggle-rithm]

Why in the world would the government hide a controlled demolition of WTC7 as part of 9/11, when they went on later and did a deliberate demolition of all the other buildings that were damaged beyond repair? That just doesn't make any sense at all. Why not just destroy WTC7 along with the rest of the buildings? Even if there were "sensitive material" in it, 1) the fact that it is a hazard zone means that it is off limits to everyone, so who's gping to see it? The only people who have access are those who can access the information in the rubble, anyway. Besides, if you want to destroy the material, 2) why not just send it through the shredder? A lot more effective. Of course, 3) most of the contents were already destroyed by the fire raging out of control, so there wasn't going to be anything to find but charcoal.

So why destroy the building and cover it up?


The only reason to believe WTC7 was intentionally destroyed is that it manufactures just one more Factoid Mcnugget, something they can point to and say, "How do you explain this?" By CT standards, it doesn't have to make any sense, and doesn't have to fit into the scheme of the overall "theory". This theory is apparently sooper secret and can't be divulged to the likes of us.

[Stellafane]

...it doesn't make you crazy if you think sept 11 was a falseflag terrorism, it only sounds crazy to you and actually not an impossibility. Falseflag terrorism have been performed all over the world several times in the past, why not in the US?...

This is going to sound rather uncharitable, but I personally believe one does have to be crazy to some extent to honestly believe that 9/11, one of the most witnessed, documented, and carefully studied events of all time, was "falseflag terrorism." Because to do so, you have to utterly ignore the vast preponderance of irrefutable evidence compiled by experts, and instead focus on stray pixels, blurry shadows, and crackpot theories that defy the laws of science.

That's not to say that I think you're crazy. I do suspect, however, that your loathing for the USA -- expressed in other posts that make it sound as though you consider this country one of the most corrupt, vile, and violent in history -- may be clouding your judgement. Thus you are hugely motivated to blame everything on the current government, whether or not any evidence exists to justify this idea.

[CurtC]

I'm sorry but by the way you posted it, without commenting on it or sourrunding them with these symbols (« »), you fully endorsed it.By the way, Pardalis, you're the only person I've ever seen use the (<< >>) symbols, or whatever character you use to make them.

[Flo]

That's not to say that I think you're crazy. I do suspect, however, that your loathing for the USA -- expressed in other posts that make it sound as though you consider this country one of the most corrupt, vile, and violent in history -- may be clouding your judgement. Thus you are hugely motivated to blame everything on the current government, whether or not any evidence exists to justify this idea.

I do suspect that, in his case, it hasn't so much to do with the politics of the USA as with the small to nonexistent importance he has in it. ;)

[NobbyNobbs]

Here ya go

I have no experience in engineering field, therefore I'm not keen on speaking technical launguage of engineering. But it seems too clear that the buildings came down with explosives.




This amazes me. From this, Geggy, you imply that anything you are not an expert on you nevertheless feel qualified to speak on with authority. What a mess this world would be if everyone thought that way.

"I'm no accountant, but it seems too clear that your books are wrong."
"I'm no teacher, but it seems too clear that your instructional methods are screwy."
"I'm no astronaut, but it seems too clear that those suit are too funny-looking to possibly work."

I don't know how to post links yet, but look back on what I said about common sense a page or two ago. It doesn't always work, particularly when speaking of something outside your field.

Try engaging a non-mathematician in a discussion of imaginary numbers and see what happens. Same thing.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The only reason to believe WTC7 was intentionally destroyed is that it manufactures just one more Factoid Mcnugget, something they can point to and say, "How do you explain this?" By CT standards, it doesn't have to make any sense, and doesn't have to fit into the scheme of the overall "theory". This theory is apparently sooper secret and can't be divulged to the likes of us.

Quite correct. It is the same god of the gaps argument used by creationists against evolutionary theory, and it is therefore the same logical fallacy.

[Manny]

Quite correct. It is the same god of the gaps argument used by creationists against evolutionary theory, and it is therefore the same logical fallacy.For some of them that's it. Others have a weird fixation on Larry Silverstein and allege that he somehow profited by demolishing a fully-leased office building. Except that he profited at the expense of the insurance companies, who were also in on it. Or something like that.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

I've been lurking over this thread and would like to bring up one point if it hasn't already been covered.

Among the 3000+ victims in the WTC, there were many who were not US citizens. If there were *any* evidence that the Bush administration was involved would there not be an international outcry for some type of sanctions? It seems that there would be ongoing investigations by the other countries and the U.N., with extensive global media coverage. So far I haven't heard of any.

Feel free to ignore me if this point has been discussed previously.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Funny thing about the london bombing. al Qaeda was accused of the attack but investigators came to a conclusion that Qaeda had nothing to do with it. It's all over the BBC website.


I cannot find a single reference to this on the BBC website. Care to provide the links?

It may in fact be true that the London bombers did not meet anyone from Al Qaeda, but we have no info on what they did in Pakistan. And at the very least they were inspired by them. Or where tney British agents who "sacrificed" themselves?

[Belz...]

Plus, if you left this country, you would still have to deal with the lies, lootin', rampage, etc., of the country you move to. And you would probably not have the civil liberties you enjoy in the US (Just ask Randi why he left Canada!).

I wasn't aware we had a lack of civil liberties in Canada.

[aggle-rithm]

I've been lurking over this thread and would like to bring up one point if it hasn't already been covered.

Among the 3000+ victims in the WTC, there were many who were not US citizens. If there were *any* evidence that the Bush administration was involved would there not be an international outcry for some type of sanctions? It seems that there would be ongoing investigations by the other countries and the U.N., with extensive global media coverage. So far I haven't heard of any.

Feel free to ignore me if this point has been discussed previously.

In fact, there's a long list of groups that would positively salivate over any GOOD evidence that Bush's administration is corrupt, not the least of which is the Democratic party. They're STILL gloating over the Watergate scandal, and the political back-biting between parties has only become more viscious since then.

geggy, do you think you're more clever than all these people? Don't you think that if your views are the slightest bit credible, that the Democrats, and a lot of other political groups, would be all over it?

And don't say that they're all in it together. If you've watched the news more than a couple of times in your life, you KNOW better.

[Belz...]

By the way, Pardalis, you're the only person I've ever seen use the (<< >>) symbols, or whatever character you use to make them.

That's french quotes. The equivalent of the " ".

[geggy]

WTC7 housed several goverment agencies such as SEC, secret service, CIA, IRS, etc.

The command center on 23rd floor is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks.

WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition manner.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.small.gif

More on the thermal spot in WTC here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

The mysterious collapse of WTC7 was not addressed in the 9/11 commission report.

[Belz...]

WTC7 housed several goverment agencies such as SEC, secret service, CIA, IRS, etc.

The command center on 23rd floor is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks.

Your point beign ?

WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition manner.

Could you PLEASE find a building that fell, but that wasn't demolished, so we can compare the two ?

[aggle-rithm]

That's french quotes. The equivalent of the " ".

Or as we like to call them in the US, "Freedom quotes". ;)

[Belz...]

Or as we like to call them in the US, "Freedom quotes".

:D

[Manny]

The mysterious collapse of WTC7 was not addressed in the 9/11 commission report.OK, Osama, I'm officially sick of your ****. The collapse of 3WTC was also not addressed in the commission report. Nor was the damage to BT Plaza, the damage to the World Financial Center, the destruction of St. Nicholas church, etc. Know why? Because the report focused on the terrorists and their actions and the direct consequences of that. Not on collateral damage. It wasn't their mandate.

Actually, you do know that, don't you, you terrorist puke?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or as we like to call them in the US, "Freedom quotes". ;)

Gah. There was some restaurant I ate at over the last two weeks that you could get a side of American Fries with your sandwich.

[aggle-rithm]

WTC7 housed several goverment agencies such as SEC, secret service, CIA, IRS, etc.


And they weren't in on it?!?


The command center on 23rd floor is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks.


So did everyone in this command center perish? Or were they able to simply move to another building and continue to function, as so many other groups did?


WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition manner.

Yes, we KNOW you believe this. Your beliefs are meaningless without evidence.



The mysterious collapse of WTC7 was not addressed in the 9/11 commission report.

What?!? You mean they didn't delve into every whacko conspiracy theory out there?

Surely they investigated the reptoids?

[kookbreaker]

WTC7 housed several goverment agencies such as SEC, secret service, CIA, IRS, etc.


So why destroy a whole building? If they want stuff not to be found, why do it such an unreliable manner that could result in a clean-crewman finding incriminating materials


The command center on 23rd floor is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks.


So why destroy it?


WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition manner.


No it didn't.

That does it:

<mode= Samuel Jackson>

Say controlled demolition manner again! SAY controlled demolition manner AGAIN! I dare you, I double dare you, mot[rule8]! Say controlled demolition manner one more [rule8] time! Oh, I'm sorry, did I break your concentration?

</mode.>



http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.small.gif

More on the thermal spot in WTC here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html


This proves absolutely nothing except that there were hotspots. Why are you surprised at these hotspots?


The mysterious collapse of WTC7 was not addressed in the 9/11 commission report.

They don't hav to chance down the fantasies that you've invented.

[rwguinn]

WTC7 housed several goverment agencies such as SEC, secret service, CIA, IRS, etc.

The command center on 23rd floor is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks.

WTC7 fell in a controlled demolition manner.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.small.gif

More on the thermal spot in WTC here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

The mysterious collapse of WTC7 was not addressed in the 9/11 commission report.
no, you blithering scientific incompetent and ranting ijit!
Controlled demolitions are "controlled" so that they will fall in the same manner that a building with its major structural supports damaged falls.
The "controlled" part is the "when", and to allow the "shrapnel" (windows, light fixtures, desks, etc) and dust-making stuff (sheetrock, flooring, etc) to be removed to reduce/eliminate collateral damage.

[CurtC]

More on the thermal spot in WTC here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.htmlOK, so it was hot five days later. That proves that fires were burning and continued to burn, which seems to support the "fire damage" explanation for the collapse. It offers no evidence one way or another concerning explosives. So why did you bother to post this link? The signal to noise ratio of your posts is pretty high.

[geggy]

I will post this yet again...

Go here and click on "detonate" of the computer animation...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Now watch this clip of WTC7 falling in slow motion, you'll see the penthouse on the top fell first...

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif

[Pardalis]

By the way, Pardalis, you're the only person I've ever seen use the (<< >>) symbols, or whatever character you use to make them.

Sorry for my french keyboard.;)

[rwguinn]

I will post this yet again...

Go here and click on "detonate" of the computer animation...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Now watch this clip of WTC7 falling in slow motion, you'll see the penthouse on the top fell first...

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/wtc7/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif
Are you really that stupid? (That is what we call a retorical question--we know you actually are)
See my post 2 up.
A controlled demolition is designed to perform as if the building had major structural damage.
It imitates the WTC collapse, not the other way around...

[Stellafane]

Geggy, you still haven't really answered my earlier question: If you honestly believe what your fellow CT'ers are saying, what are we supposed to do about this? Being ruled by an evil government controlled by mass-murdering psychotics demands more drastic and immediate action than merely asking questions, doesn't it? You may feel you're "contributing to society" by promoting your theories, but what are we supposed to do? You mention overthrow of the government, do you mean that literally (armed insurrection and all that)? Because surely, for a government capable of pulling off a vast conspiracy of the magnitude of 9/11, fixing a mere election would be child's play, thus the ballot box is no option. Please tell us, what do you expect of us?

Or do you not really expect anything at all, you're just trying to attract attention and achieve some personal sense of significance?

[aggle-rithm]

I will post this yet again...

Go here and click on "detonate" of the computer animation...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Now watch this clip of WTC7 falling in slow motion, you'll see the penthouse on the top fell first...



How does a building that collapses by other means fall differently? This is crucial if you want to make your point. If, on the other hand, you're just a mindless troll, then never mind.

[Beleth]

Now watch this clip of WTC7 falling in slow motion, you'll see the penthouse on the top fell first... Did it collapse onto the roof of the building, or did it fall down (more or less intact) through the roof of the building?

Also, if I posted pictures of a parakeet's clawed feet, would that be proof that parakeets are cats?

[Dragon]

Don't think you're supposed to hotlink like that, geggy.
Anyway, why do you think that that penthouses collapsing into the rest of the structure is evidence of a controlled demolition?

[Pardalis]

geggy, I’m sincerely trying to understand what is your theory on september 11, wich I don't completely grasp at the moment.

But looking back, we both agree on the following (correct me if I’m wrong):

-The Us government knew about an impending Al Qaeda attack on American landmarks prior to 9/11 (FACT)
-Al Qaeda operatives highjacked airline planes and redirected them into both towers of the WTC on tuesday morning, september 11 2001. (FACT)
-Both towers fell down a few minutes later crushing every living soul within them.(FACT)
-The Bush administration used the 9/11events and the fear of future massive attacks to validate an invasion of Iraq (FACT)


The next is where we strongly disagree. These next lines are my interpretations of your "claims" (wich are mostly insinuations BTW). Again, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong:

-Due to their buisiness ties with the Bin Laden family (FACT), the Bush administration knew specifically about the Al Qaeda 9/11 plot on the WTC (CAN’T BE PROVEN).
-The Bush administration then proceeded to plant explosives in the buildings so that on the day of the attack, tuesday morning of september 11 2001, they could ignite these explosive devises to make the attacks that much more destructive. (SPECULATION)
-They also put explosives on the WTC7 to get rid of any evidence (SPECULATION)


If I’m getting this right, according to you Al Qaeda were mearly the victims in all of this. They were just a poor islamist extremist group just trying to make a point, who got caught up in this massive world domination plan by the White House. Don’t you see that by inflating the power of the Bush administration, you have scaled down AlQaeda’s role in the equation to a mear accessory? That’s what I think is dangerous. AlQaeda is a real threat, independant of the Bush administration.

I’m not saying the US governent has nothing to do with what hapenned (their foeign policies obviously stimulates terrorism), and by no means do I excuse the war in Iraq, but Iraq is a very complex situation, with many variables, and it can’t be simplified to one group of people’s greed. Invertly, the 9/11 attacks can’t just be about a group of people’s hatred of America, I’ll give you that.

My problem with you here is that you’re putting the Bush administration at the center of everything, like a monotheist god. This is as damaging to democracy as the use of Al Qaeda and terrorism to excuse any use of force by the US. There are alot of grey areas in both cases (9/11 and Iraq), and it is intellectually dumb to simplify everything to "the White House did it". The grey can’t be filled in by shaky theories.

[aggle-rithm]

Did it collapse onto the roof of the building, or did it fall down through the roof of the building?

Also, if I posted pictures of a parakeet's clawed feet, would that be proof that parakeets are cats?

A Collection of Fallacies:

When it's raining, the birds don't sing.
The birds aren't singing.
Therefore, it's raining.

When a person dies, they become very quiet.
Bob is very quiet.
Therefore, Bob is dead.

If done properly, poisoned food tastes like normal food.
My dinner tastes normal.
Therefore, my dinner has been poisoned.

When a building is demolished, the roof of the building falls downwards.
WTC7's roof fell downwards.
Therefore, WTC7 was demolished.

If a person is very intelligent, they are able to post messages in a forum.
geggy posts messages in a forum.
Therefore, geggy is very intelligent. ;)

[Pardalis]

When a person dies, they become very quiet.
Bob is very quiet.
Therefore, Bob is dead.

I love this one!

Here is another fallacy:

The Bush administration have had buisiness ties with the Bin Laden family
Ossama Bin Laden planned the attacks on the WTC
Therefore the Bush administration had something to do with 9/11

[bob_kark]

When a person dies, they become very quiet.
Bob is very quiet.
Therefore, Bob is dead.

Hey, I've just been busy!

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, I've just been busy!

Shhh! You're supposed to be dead! :)

[Belz...]

Sorry for my french keyboard.;)

Aucune excuse!

[Belz...]

Hey, I've just been busy!

Speaking of which, 43, I'd REALLY need someone to help with out with sock-counting.

[Beleth]

A Collection of Fallacies:

When it's raining, the birds don't sing.
The birds aren't singing.
Therefore, it's raining. Exactly.

There is, however, a fallacy of this type that even skeptics like to fall into, and the first line of the syllogism is:

"A duck quacks like a duck and walks like a duck."

[Polaris]

[QUOTE=geggy;1604070]First of all I don't think the bush administraion are evil. They're just bunch of wimps giving in as preys of evil. Nothing corrupts a soul more than greed and a bottle of jameson.

Glad I recently switched to Powers!

[delphi_ote]

Speaking of which, 43, I'd REALLY need someone to help with out with sock-counting.
You'll count your own socks, and you'll like it, 1! Working in teams reduces your stealthiness and mobility. Besides, you guys might find some way to make it more efficent, like working in an assembly line fashion. That puts the pride of our organization on the line. The tradition of inefficiency goes all the way back to our building the pyramids with kites instead of ramps. Do you want to accidentally ruin thousands of years of tradition by handing 43 half of a pair of socks?

43 has his own work to do right now confusing the Loosers by playing not-so-dead.

[Polaris]

Polaris...sorry to say this but you're an idiot. And back up to one of my older posts on "conspiracy theory" in this thread and you'll see that in which you've copied and pasted what you thought I said, and I didn't, was written by a reporter who is affiliated with informationclearinghouse.info. I don't agree on most part of what was written although it may hold true in Iraq. Do you realize the US is falling deeper into debt at nearly 9 trillion dollars, up from 2.6 trillion dollars, since bush took power? And guess who is stuck with paying that debt. Federal spending is currently at a whopping 26 trillion dollars by the bush administration alone. From the first president to bill clinton, only 20 trillion was spent. Don't you find that alarming? Oh you're canadian right? What does it matter to you anyway

Make sure you know who you're responding to before you engage in childish name-calling. It just makes your feeble argument sound all the more 'tarded. And I live in Texas.

[bob_kark]

Sorry 1, but I'm busy teaching a zebra to speak french-canadian goose. I'll catch up when I can.

[delphi_ote]

Sorry 1, but I'm busy teaching a zebra to speak french-canadian goose. I'll catch up when I can.
And playing not-so-dead, of course. Make sure the zebras know the word for "migration" and "lactose intolerance." It's very important.

[bob_kark]

And playing not-so-dead, of course. Make sure the zebras know the word for "migration" and "lactose intolerance." It's very important.
I took the liberty of making the kill phrase "Zero Point Energy." I've also nearly completed the Sockulator 3k. It quickly counts socks but slowly prints the results so that it still takes the same amount of time as hand counting.

[delphi_ote]

I took the liberty of making the kill phrase "Zero Point Energy." I've also nearly completed the Sockulator 3k. It quickly counts socks but slowly prints the results so that it still takes the same amount of time as hand counting.
Excellent work. We will have to verify the results by hand counting, of course.

[Ramooone]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-27-conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm


another article in the mainstream about these loosers.

[Gravy]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-27-conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm

another article in the mainstream about these loosers.
Thanks for that link. I'm going to send the supporters my critique.

[Regnad Kcin]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-27-conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm"This is our generation's Vietnam, our generation's Kennedy assassination," says Korey Rowe, 23, the film's producer...
Is it possible to be more inane? I'm gonna go with...no.

[Pardalis]

Make sure you know who you're responding to before you engage in childish name-calling. It just makes your feeble argument sound all the more 'tarded. And I live in Texas.

I believe he was talking to me, and refering to my earlier comments. I guess geggy can't read latin very well.;)

[delphi_ote]

Is it possible to be more inane? I'm gonna go with...no.
One person shot in his car.
vs
3,000 people killed live on T.V. in terrible acts of desctrution.

[geggy]

Are you really that stupid? (That is what we call a retorical question--we know you actually are)
See my post 2 up.
A controlled demolition is designed to perform as if the building had major structural damage.
It imitates the WTC collapse, not the other way around...

I'm really interested in hearing you explain why the falling of WTC7 doesn't look like a controlled demo.

Paneteris, you left out the standdown of NORAD and the wargame exercises that were performed on the morning of sept 11 in the list of facts. You need to think who benefitted the most from the sept 11 tragedy. The Bush administraion knew what was coming and saw the devastation as an opportunity to solidfy their power. They knew they could use it as a false reason for their criminal activities such as NSA spying without permission, which they've been doing long before sept 11. During the time of the attack, citizens were bolted down with fear and distress causing the frontal lobes of their brain to shut down which means they were not thinking clearly at all. The administration took full advantage to galvinize public support for the hunt of Osama in the middle east, meaning they used sept 11 as a justification to invade the middle east in order to maximize their profit and expand their military power. Also it's a matter of public record that Daddy Bush has financial ties to the bin Ladens that was established in the 70's. When Avery said 9/11 is the new JFK, he meant that 70 percent of the public were convinced that oswald didn't act alone and the warren commission was a whitewash. Unfortunately the reopening of a new investigation never happened. If you really care about your future and your children's future, you can take part of the peaceful movement and demand new invesitigation that could lead to the accountability of the bush administration and the meltdown of the white house.

Nearly 3 billion dollars have been spent on propaganda and PR campaign since the start of bush's presidency. It's no secret that the bush administration has gotten a stranglehold of the public media. The USA today article on Loose Change is just another fine example of smearing attacks on the movement and y'all fell for it.

[delphi_ote]

I'm really interested in hearing you explain why the falling of WTC7 doesn't look like a controlled demo.
I'd be more interested to hear you explain why it does look like a controlled demo. You've already shown that you know very little about demolitions.

[Pardalis]

Paneteris,

For the last time, my name is P-A-R-D-A-L-I-S!!!!!!!!

geggy, can I ask you what is your age? Quite frankly, sometimes I get the feeling i'm talking to a 9 year old.

[Pardalis]

During the time of the attack, citizens were bolted down with fear and distress causing the frontal lobes of their brain to shut down which means they were not thinking clearly at all.

Now you lost me...

It's no secret that the bush administration has gotten a stranglehold of the public media. The USA today article on Loose Change is just another fine example of smearing attacks on the movement and y'all fell for it.

Can't you see this sounds a tiny little bit paranoid?

[geggy]

I'd be more interested to hear you explain why it does look like a controlled demo. You've already shown that you know very little about demolitions.

Sighs...

Under normal circumstances of a conteolled demolition, the bottom of the central cores of the building are blasted first (which explains the penthouse fell down before everything else fell), then the cores on both sides of the builidng are blasted. Why? So the two sides of the building can collapse toward and inward of the center of the building. Why? To prevent the risk of both sides of the building from falling outward that could create larger field of debris that would make clean up less convienance and more difficult for machines and trucks.

[Gravy]

The USA today article on Loose Change is just another fine example of smearing attacks on the movement and y'all fell for it.
Geggy, haven't you understood yet that ranting without specifics doesn't cut it here? What, specifically, is untrue in the USA Today article?

[Beleth]

I'm really interested in hearing you explain why the falling of WTC7 doesn't look like a controlled demo. Does WTC7 look more like a controlled demo, or an uncontrolled demo?

[geggy]

Well pernteias, I'm 29 with a wife and a 2 year old daughter. I live in salem, massachusetts. What else ya want to know about me?

Now you lost me...

That's because your third eye has been spraypainted.

Can't you see this sounds a tiny little bit paranoid?[/QUOTE]

Umm....no.

[hurdygurdy]

Nearly 3 billion dollars have been spent on propaganda and PR campaign since the start of bush's presidency. It's no secret that the bush administration has gotten a stranglehold of the public media. The USA today article on Loose Change is just another fine example of smearing attacks on the movement and y'all fell for it.

The official theory is accepted by the public media from the whole world. Has the Bush administration a stranglehold of all of them?

[Gravy]

Paneteris, you left out the standdown of NORAD and the wargame exercises that were performed on the morning of sept 11 in the list of facts.

Please provide evidence that NORAD "stood down" so that the attacks could occur. Evidence, gaggy, not conjecture and more mindless ranting.

I'm waiting. Whatcha got?

ETA: 29 and with a child? Terrifying.

[Pardalis]

Well pernteias

Oh, so your mispelling my name is somekind of a joke? Or are you just dyslexic?

[geggy]

Geggy, haven't you understood yet that ranting without specifics doesn't cut it here? What, specifically, is untrue in the USA Today article?

First of all, the article states that 911 truthers are provoking the victims by making profits from selling dvds and stuff which is not true. Go back to the first post of this thread and you'll see that you can watch loose change...for FREE. Flight 93 were released today in theaters and people are expected to shell out 10 bux for a tix.

Secondly, more 911 truthers don't support the no-plane at the pentagon theory than you give credit to. They are simply aasking for the release of the videos of the crash.

[Pardalis]

That's because your third eye has been spraypainted.

What in blazes are you talking about?

[geggy]

The official theory is accepted by the public media from the whole world. Has the Bush administration a stranglehold of all of them?

The official theory is accepted by many citizens because the bush administration has a stranglehold of the media.

[Gravy]

Sighs...

Under normal circumstances of a conteolled demolition, the bottom of the central cores of the building are blasted first (which explains the penthouse fell down before everything else fell), then the cores on both sides of the builidng are blasted. Why? So the two sides of the building can collapse toward and inward of the center of the building. Why? To prevent the risk of both sides of the building from falling outward that could create larger field of debris that would make clean up less convienance and more difficult for machines and trucks.

Geggy, here’s a quote from FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene at WTC 7:

"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002]

Is it your contention that Nigro and the other officers on the scene were in on the conspiracy? Please reply.

[geggy]

What in blazes are you talking about?

Well parehanslia, third eye is a slang for frontal lobe of your brain.

[Pardalis]

The official theory is accepted by many citizens because the bush administration has a stranglehold of the media.

It's really impossible to have an intelligent argument with you. There is no way out your circular logic.

[hurdygurdy]

The official theory is accepted by many citizens because the bush administration has a stranglehold of the media.

You didn't understand my question. Has the Bush administration a stanglehold of the public media from all the countries of the planet?

[Pardalis]

BTW, geeky, since you can only give us your opinion, can you tell me what you think about Al Qaeda? Do they exist or are they just a chimera?

[Gravy]

First of all, the article states that 911 truthers are provoking the victims by making profits from selling dvds and stuff which is not true.
It isn't? Louder Than words doesn't have "Loose Change" and merchandise for sale on their website? "In Plane Site" and "9/11 Eyewitness" aren't also for sale? Yes, they are, as are books and videos by other conspiracy advocates who can't be bothered to do any fact-checking. These louses are spewing lies and profiting from it.

USA Today got that right.

Secondly, more 911 truthers don't support the no-plane at the pentagon theory than you give credit to. They are simply aasking for the release of the videos of the crash.

Is it untrue that some conspiracy advocates are no-planers? "Loose Change," the MOST POPULAR CT video, promotes the no plane idea for BOTH flight 77 and 93.

Whom are "they" asking for tapes? As kookbreaker pointed out, when the
government investigators finish with the tapes, they go back to their respective owners. Many tapes have been played at the Moussaoui trial (you never answered if you think he's innocent), and many others have been played for family members, including some this month.

Family members of victims have seen the videos of the Pentagon crash, and NONE of them are calling for an "investigation."What does that tell you?

And do you now agree that the USA Today article did not "smear" anyone?

(edited to fix typos)

[geggy]

You didn't understand my question. Has the Bush administration a stanglehold of the public media from all the countries of the planet?

Yes alQaeda exists as they were created by bin Laden with help of CIA and they're dangerous group of crackpots but were they really responsible for sept 11?

I can't really trust the source with the quote by chief nigro. We'll have to wait and see as soon as NIST releases the final conclusion of the WTC7 collapsing. Everything we say why it collapsed would be hypothetical.

"In plane site" is disinfo but you can view it for free at www.question911.com.

Moussaoui is guilty of being a member of Qaeda and wanting to perform terrorism toward america. But was he part of sept 11 conspiracy? I thought you'd be interested in knowing that many family members are defending moussaoui from receiving death penalty because they believe he is the wrong guy to be on trial. No BS here.

[Pardalis]

were they really responsible for sept 11?

You tell me. Who did fly these planes into the WTC and the pentagon?

[Gravy]

I thought you'd be interested in knowing that many family members are defending moussaoui from receiving death penalty because they believe he is the wrong guy to be on trial. No BS here.
I am interested. Please tell me who they are. And please be sure that it's for the reason you state,and not becaust they're opposed to the death penalty as a policy.

[Gravy]

I am interested. Please tell me who they are. And please be sure that it's for the reason you state,and not becaust they're opposed to the death penalty as a policy.

Okay, I found one in this AP story http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?no=287227&rel_no=1

Although she agrees that Moussaoui was involved, she doesn't think he should be on trial.

Mind if I repeat that? Although she agrees that Moussaoui was involved, she doesn't think he should be on trial. Wow.

She thinks the U.S. has people in custody who are higher up and who should shoulder more blame.

But she doesn't name them. Do you find it odd that a family member of a victim says she knows "whodunnit" but doesn't mention WHO, either on the stand or in an interview about that subject? Wouldn't the other family members like to have that information, especially since we already have the culprits in custody? Sheesh.

So, that's one person out of thousands of family members who thinks Moussaoui has been blamed for too much.

You said,
many family members are defending moussaoui from receiving death penalty because they believe he is the wrong guy to be on trial. No BS here.

Do you know of any others, or was your "no BS here" incorrect?

(edited for grammar)

[hurdygurdy]

Yes alQaeda exists as they were created by bin Laden with help of CIA and they're dangerous group of crackpots but were they really responsible for sept 11?

I can't really trust the source with the quote by chief nigro. We'll have to wait and see as soon as NIST releases the final conclusion of the WTC7 collapsing. Everything we say why it collapsed would be hypothetical.

"In plane site" is disinfo but you can view it for free at www.question911.com.

Moussaoui is guilty of being a member of Qaeda and wanting to perform terrorism toward america. But was he part of sept 11 conspiracy? I thought you'd be interested in knowing that many family members are defending moussaoui from receiving death penalty because they believe he is the wrong guy to be on trial. No BS here.

Okay, for the last time:

Has the Bush administration a stanglehold of the public media from all the countries of the planet?

[Gravy]

"In plane site" is disinfo but you can view it for free at www.question911.com.

Yes, but they also sell it, and proceeds do not go to 9/11 victims' causes.

Are there any videos or books that promote a CT view but that you do not consider "disinfo?"

[geggy]

Okay, for the last time:

Has the Bush administration a stanglehold of the public media from all the countries of the planet?

All over the world? You mean like US troops planting stories in Iraq? What about the time tony blair threatened to prosecute reporters if they leak the memo showing conversation bewteen bush and blair about bush's desire to bomb the aljareeza media facility? Etc etc etc etc....

Pelrhsaios, I can't really say. Some say planes may have been remote controlled and that's not so farfetched. Before the pentagon was crashed, the plane made a sharp 270 degree bank turn and crashed the west wing where the part was being renovated. It's almost impossible for an amateur pilot to make a 270 degree turn but it's possible with remote control. The reason why we don't see very many plane debris may be because the debris were delved into the ground. I mean the plane was going 500 mph when it crashed, you know.

Hey, look, an incoming fdny chaplin doubts alQaeda did it:
http://question911.livejournal.com/7143.html

Gravy, trust me. It came from the mainstream media source. Family members of the victims of WTC attacks are defending him. And no, it's not for the opposition to the death penalty policy.

[Gravy]

Gravy, trust me. It came from the mainstream media source. Family members of the victims of WTC attacks are defending him. And no, it's not for the opposition to the death penalty policy.
No offense, geggy, but you're the last person who's word I take for anything around here. You've been wrong in every encounter I've had with you, and you just expresed an opinion about the Pentagon crash and simultaneously displayed that you know zero about it.

So, how about the reference to that mainstream media source?

[geggy]

Yes, but they also sell it, and proceeds do not go to 9/11 victims' causes.

Are there any videos or books that promote a CT view but that you do not consider "disinfo?"

Yeah it's true that there are some who are in it for the sake of profit and they're jerks. Reminds me of the jerks who sold patriotic tshirts, stickers and ashtrays for the profit after sept 11 heh. But some who want to work full time as truthers depend on profits to make a living. Loose change producers give away dvds for free to those who lost family members and friends on sept 11.

I don't really read books and watch videos of sept 11. I read articles that's readily availble to read on the internet.

I already posted this article but it's a good place to start...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

Informationclearinghouse.info has good and well balanced articles relating sept 11.

[Gravy]

I already posted this article but it's a good place to start...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

Informationclearinghouse.info has good and well balanced articles relating sept 11.

Yes, geggy, that's a good place to start if you want conspiracy theories with no evidence to back them up. I mentioned this before: the first article on that site doesn't have citations to sources that back up any of its claims It only has a list of sources and suggestions for further reading. The author makes all sorts of outlandish claims and has zero references to back them up. Are you kidding me? You consider that "well balanced" reporting?

And let's take a look at who that author is:
Walter E. Davis
Associate Professor, Sport Studies
Kent State School of Exercise and Leisure Sports

And a quote from him
The report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does not answer some very important questions.

This is a guy you trust to do your scientific scrutiny? He knows better than the experts who wrote the FEMA report? But he can't cite a single source that backs up his claims?

Geggy, you're not going to get accurate information from CT sites. Period.

And I'll take that reference about the families supporting Moussaoui, when you get a chance.

[geggy]

Wow, cognative disassociation at its best.

So you're dismissing everything that's written in this article just because of his job title? Because of what he does for a living, it means he can't do anything else in his life?

What you're displaying yourself as is one sided, excessively egolistical, pseudo-intellectual.

Congratulations on becoming for who you are, you must be really proud of yourself.

[Dragon]

Wow, cognative disassociation at its best.

So you're dismissing everything that's written in this article just because of his job title? Because of what he does for a living, it means he can't do anything else in his life?

What you're displaying yourself as is one sided, excessively egolistical, pseudo-intellectual.

Congratulations on becoming for who you are, you must be really proud of yourself.If you're going to use the big words, geggy, please get them right - it's cognitive dissonance.

Anyway Gravy's point was He knows better than the experts who wrote the FEMA report? But he can't cite a single source that backs up his claims? - rather than Davis' lack of relevant qualifications. The fact that you didn't see this and have descended into insult are obvious symptoms of - wait for it - cognitive dissonance!

[geggy]

Although she agrees that Moussaoui was involved, she doesn't think he should be on trial.

I went back to reading some posts just to amuse myself. Then I found this post which I've missed. That's a highly contradictory statement in case you don't notice.

"This guy was involved but he should not be on trial"

Heheheh *bangs head on wall*

[Dr Adequate]

Ah yes, the last resort of the crank ... when all your arguments have failed, start slinging insults. Let me join with Dragon in suggesting that you learn how to spell these words and what they mean.

The fact remains that the opinion, on a matter of engineering, of a professor of sport studies, with no reference to the great mass of literature on engineering, is worth a great deal less than that of engineers, who know about engineering.

You find this attitude "one sided, excessively egolistical, pseudo-intellectual". I call it "stating the bleedin' obvious".

[geggy]

Yeah it's 6 o'clock in the morning and I'm tired....

Sorry....

English nazi...

[Dragon]

Yeah it's 6 o'clock in the morning and I'm tired....

Sorry....

English nazi...Welsh ex-Socialist, actually.

[geggy]

I meant to call you a english nazi as in a sense of being a grammar critique.

Welsh ex-socialist actually sounds better.

[Gravy]

Wow, cognative disassociation at its best.

So you're dismissing everything that's written in this article just because of his job title? Because of what he does for a living, it means he can't do anything else in his life?

What you're displaying yourself as is one sided, excessively egolistical, pseudo-intellectual.

Congratulations on becoming for who you are, you must be really proud of yourself.

No, geggy, first I looked at each of the article's points and judgments, then I made my judgment that it's a mountain of ignorant horsecrap writen by a fool who can't cite sources for his claims. Sorry, I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to all 22 points he made. If you'd like to pick one point, I'll handle that as a favor to you.

But perhaps you should first read my critique of the Loose Change video, which covers many of those points. You can find it here (http://media2.uploadjar.com/file.php?file=uploads/911_loose_change_vie15a3eb.pdf) as a smaller but uglier PDF, or here (http://www.prodigem.com/torrents/download/itmatters/itmatters-9-11_Loose_Change_2_Viewer_Guide.torrent) as a 26 MB torrent file. Since you mentioned the Pentagon a couple of posts ago, you might go to that section first: it's covered on pages 21 to 59.

By the way, I believe you mentioned that you are deaf and haven't seen "Loose change" because it's not subtitled. The entire text of "Loose Change" is transcribed in the document I just mentioned.

I'm not interested in what names you have to call me. I'm interested in what facts and critical thinking skills you bring to the table.

This is my third request for your source that says that many 9/11 victims support Moussaoui, and not just because they oppose the death penalty. You said "trust me" and "that's no BS," so I'm giving you a chance to show that you're trustworthy and not full of it. If I don't hear back from you then we'll all know what to think.

[Dragon]

I meant to call you a english nazi as in a sense of being a grammar critique.

Welsh ex-socialist actually sounds better.Critic - a critique is something that a critic writes. :rolleyes:

Hey, this forum already has a god - is there a vacancy for "Grammar Nazi" ?

[Gravy]

I went back to reading some posts just to amuse myself. Then I found this post which I've missed. That's a highly contradictory statement in case you don't notice.

"This guy was involved but he should not be on trial"

Heheheh *bangs head on wall*

That's exactly what the article says. It's not my statement. What's your point? Did you actually read my whole post?

[Gravy]

Critic - a critique is something that a critic writes. :rolleyes:

Hey, this forum already has a god - is there a vacancy for "Grammar Nazi" ?

How about "Vocabulary Constabulary?"

[Dragon]

How about "Vocabulary Constabulary?":D :D

edit - of the "New Word Order" ?

[Mojo]

All over the world? You mean like US troops planting stories in Iraq? What about the time tony blair threatened to prosecute reporters if they leak the memo showing conversation bewteen bush and blair about bush's desire to bomb the aljareeza media facility? Etc etc etc etc....If the Bush regime has a stranglehold on the public media from all the countries of the planet, how were we able to read about this in, er, the public media?

[Belz...]

The tradition of inefficiency goes all the way back to our building the pyramids with kites instead of ramps.

Poor Kilik. Didn't know what hit him.

43 has his own work to do right now confusing the Loosers by playing not-so-dead.

Very well, master. 63,455 socks to go.

[Belz...]

I'm really interested in hearing you explain why the falling of WTC7 doesn't look like a controlled demo.

It's been explained to you, Gigli. Controlled demos are made to look like falling buildings.

Paneteris, you left out the standdown of NORAD and the wargame exercises that were performed on the morning of sept 11 in the list of facts.

You should teach hockey goalies the art of goalpost-moving.

Under normal circumstances of a conteolled demolition, the bottom of the central cores of the building are blasted first (which explains the penthouse fell down before everything else fell), then the cores on both sides of the builidng are blasted. Why? So the two sides of the building can collapse toward and inward of the center of the building. Why? To prevent the risk of both sides of the building from falling outward that could create larger field of debris that would make clean up less convienance and more difficult for machines and trucks.

Uhuh. Have you ever considered that, when damage is dealt to a buliding, the central core may be compromised to as to result in precisely this kind of collapse ?

[Belz...]

First of all, the article states that 911 truthers are provoking the victims by making profits from selling dvds and stuff which is not true. Go back to the first post of this thread and you'll see that you can watch loose change...for FREE. Flight 93 were released today in theaters and people are expected to shell out 10 bux for a tix.

Secondly, more 911 truthers don't support the no-plane at the pentagon theory than you give credit to. They are simply aasking for the release of the videos of the crash.

How can someone call such a bunch of close-minded individuals "truthers" ?

The official theory is accepted by many citizens because the bush administration has a stranglehold of the media.

You dodged the question, there.

First off, why do the media AROUND THE WORLD agree with the official theory ? Are they ALL in on it ?

Second, if, to you guys, the collapse of the various WTC buildings is OBVIOUSLY apparent as a controlled demo, why wouldn't more people believe your side of the story, from day one ? Your contention that most people accept the official story is inconsistent with your other assertions.

[Beleth]

Does WTC7 look more like a controlled demo, or an uncontrolled demo? Geggy, why won't you answer this question?

Is it because you can't, and you know that this entire line of reasoning falls apart if you can't?

[Belz...]

All over the world? You mean like US troops planting stories in Iraq? What about the time tony blair threatened to prosecute reporters if they leak the memo showing conversation bewteen bush and blair about bush's desire to bomb the aljareeza media facility? Etc etc etc etc....

Wow. That usually-incompetent government SURE is efficient when it comes to world-wide, complex conspiracies, is it not ?

Pelrhsaios, I can't really say. Some say planes may have been remote controlled and that's not so farfetched.

Except it doesn't make sense UNLESS you prove that the official story is wrong AND that there's a motive for it.

Before the pentagon was crashed, the plane made a sharp 270 degree bank turn and crashed the west wing where the part was being renovated. It's almost impossible for an amateur pilot to make a 270 degree turn but it's possible with remote control.

Why isn't it possible for an amateur pilot ? Why would it be more possible from remote ?

[Belz...]

So you're dismissing everything that's written in this article just because of his job title? Because of what he does for a living, it means he can't do anything else in his life?

No, but it's somewhat strange that someone with little or no expertise in a field claims, ala Kilik, to know more about the field than all the experts.

What you're displaying yourself as is one sided, excessively egolistical, pseudo-intellectual.

Right back at you.

Congratulations on becoming for who you are, you must be really proud of yourself.

And I'm sure you just love the attention you're getting here.

[Dr Adequate]

So, let's see if I've got this straight.

(1) A building collapsing looks like a building collapsing.

(2) Therefore, all buildings collapse for the same reason.

(3) This includes buildings which have had large aircraft flown into them at high speeds.

(4) Anyone who disagrees with this masterly piece of logic is part of TEH CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are there any little subtleties in the argument that I've overlooked, or is that really all there is?

[geggy]

Read this first...

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=1187499&section=news&src=rss/uk/topNews

Then check out this website...

http://mujca.com/

Oh my god!!!! Conspiracy theorists got to them!!!!! Shame on them!!!!!

Anyone with a brain knows the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks....have ya ever even try to entertain the thought of it???