Gravy's new document: "half-baked theory"

[chipmunk stew]

Apparently the British Troothers are not impressed by Gravy's WTC7 (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc) document (http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf).

I introduced (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4774&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0) the document to them about three days ago.

"chek" found it suspicious (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29904#29904) that Gravy didn't address molten metal, symmetrical collapse, or Steve Jones' material analysis.

"John White" was confident (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29940#29940) that the document could be debunked within a couple days tops.

I suggested (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29956#29956) that they contact (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29967#29967) Gravy with their concerns.

Later, I followed up (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=30648#30648) to see what progress they had made.

"John White" observed (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=30659#30659) that:
The problems with the document are rather obvious, but that doesnt mean I have to engage in pointing them out to critics
He has free will choice y'know.

"chek" brilliantly parried (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=30668#30668), nearly stunning me into submission with his audacious lack of self-reflection:
I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent.
His opinion is not copyrighted and is available for fair use.

[Anti-sophist]

2. The molten metal issue is skimmed over. Whether it 'was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any
conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing' or not, it begs the question what source produced that degree of heat.


I don't understand how many times i have to repeat "friction" to this stupid question. They ask the question, I answer it, they hear me... two days later.. they ask the question again.

Chek takes the idea of "just asking questions" a little to literally. I mean, literally, all he does is ask questions. Nothing more, nothing less. Listening to answers is not on his agenda. Just ask the same questions, over and over.

[bob_kark]

How rude! Gravy spent all this time inventing a theory and they're not even going to debunk it? Well I never!

[stateofgrace]

You got to admire the ability of the guys on The UK forum. The blinding ability to dismiss and ignore anything that does not come from or is sanctioned by a conspiracy web site. The fact that Gravy’s piece simply destroyers what they hold dear is beside the point.

They are able at the drop of a hat to squeeze their eyes closed, stick their fingers in their ears and sing very loudly “LALA, I’m not listening”.

Clek is a stereotypical conspirator, who will simply avoid any direct question or anything that does not conform to his way of thinking. Direct questions such as “Well what did happen to the passengers?” Are avoided and dismissed.

He is not alone on this board, they all sing to the same tune and all tow the conspiracy party line. Give them anything close to the truth and they side step it and avoid it like the plague. This allows them to continue promoting their loony theories to a captive audience.

The UK movement is very simple is its approach.

911 Deniers = good guys

Norman rational sane people = Bad guys who are to be dismissed, ignored or mocked. Mockery can include calling them war mongers, destroyers of humanity, child killers and they all deserve to rot in hell. (These are taken from replies I have received on this board).

Welcome to the UK 911 Truth movement; abandon hope all that enters here.

[chipmunk stew]

You got to admire the ability of the guys on The UK forum. The blinding ability to dismiss and ignore anything that does not come from or is sanctioned by a conspiracy web site. The fact that Gravy’s piece simply destroyers what they hold dear is beside the point.

They are able at the drop of a hat to squeeze their eyes closed, stick their fingers in their eyes and sing very loudly “LALA, I’m not listening”.

Clek is a stereotypical conspirator, who will simply avoid any direct question or anything that does not conform to his way of thinking. Direct questions such as “Well what did happen to the passengers?” Are avoided and dismissed.

He is not alone on this board, they all sing to the same tune and all tow the conspiracy party line. Give them anything close to the truth and they side step it and avoid it like the plague. This allows them to continue promoting their loony theories to a captive audience.

The UK movement is very simple is its approach.

911 Deniers = good guys

Norman rational sane people = Bad guys who are to be dismissed, ignored or mocked. Mockery can include calling them war mongers, destroyers of humanity, child killers and they all deserve to rot in hell. (These are taken from replies I have received on this board).

Welcome to the UK 911 Truth movement; abandon hope all that enters here.
Pound for pound, they seem older, more educated, and more articulate than their American counterparts. I actually took John White for a "moderate LIHOP'er" and even gave him credit as such on this forum...but then I read some of his chemtrail posts and visited his website http://www.illusionsforum.com/ and the mirage of potential vanished in a desert of woo.

[GlennB]

....

"chek" brilliantly parried (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=30668#30668), nearly stunning me into submission with his audacious lack of self-reflection:

....


Chek nearly stunned me into submission by his recent expression of admiration for Hoffman. This, having just been shown that each revision of Hoffman's "pulverisation energy-sink" essay had been either fraudulent or horribly wrong in both fact and methodology.

However, they do have chemtrails and jelly-rain to deal with too, so maybe cut them some slack?

[Gravy]

"chek" found it suspicious (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=29904#29904) that Gravy didn't address molten metal, symmetrical collapse, or Steve Jones' material analysis.
:confused:
They must have been reading version 0.0.

[chipmunk stew]

Chek nearly stunned me into submission by his recent expression of admiration for Hoffman. This, having just been shown that each revision of Hoffman's "pulverisation energy-sink" essay had been either fraudulent or horribly wrong in both fact and methodology.

However, they do have chemtrails and jelly-rain to deal with too, so maybe cut them some slack?
Ah, yes. Bartholomew (aka DeFecToR) and the Oobleck (aka "jelly rain (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4750)").

[Gravy]

However, they do have chemtrails and jelly-rain to deal with too, so maybe cut them some slack?
Is that what they call "bukkaked with stupid" over there? The English are so quaint!

[Gravy]

How rude! Gravy spent all this time inventing a theory and they're not even going to debunk it? Well I never!
(Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)

[bob_kark]

(Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)
I thought it had something to do with the Burger King King being a government agent in charge of setting up the demolition charges and the thermite in the WTC after the impact. If you'll notice, he can appear anywhere at any time and if you look deep into his eyes, you'll see he has no soul. Anyway, that's why I don't eat at Burger King anymore.

[kookbreaker]

I thought it had something to do with the Burger King King being a government agent in charge of setting up the demolition charges and the thermite in the WTC after the impact. If you'll notice, he can appear anywhere at any time and if you look deep into his eyes, you'll see he has no soul. Anyway, that's why I don't eat at Burger King anymore.

Have you noticed how many Burger King Kings there have been over the decades? He used to be a squeaky voiced cartoon, then a Ronald McDonald Wanabee, now he's a creepy life-size puppet staring down Darth Vader. I blame Halliburton and Cheney.

[Gravy]

It's all coming together...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452fd26f990cc.jpg

[bob_kark]

I knew it! That's Rumsfeld in the blue hat!

[T.A.M.]

There was a posting over on SLC Blog last night, that inspired me, from a guy who said he and his GF had been lurking for a while. His post was basically thanking me and others for our articulate, calm presentation of the issues and discussion of them.

My point is, once again, not to worry about the CT twirps, USA version or UK variety packs, but to keep fighting the calm reasonable fight for the fence sitters and lurkers.

TAM

[Gravy]

There was a posting over on SLC Blog last night, that inspired me, from a guy who said he and his GF had been lurking for a while. His post was basically thanking me and others for our articulate, calm presentation of the issues and discussion of them.

My point is, once again, not to worry about the CT twirps, USA version or UK variety packs, but to keep fighting the calm reasonable fight for the fence sitters and lurkers.

TAM
That's a nice story, T.A.M., but I'm going to keep doing it because the money is so good.

[twinstead]

That's a nice story, T.A.M., but I'm going to keep doing it because the money is so good.

I hear ya. My new 42" plasma TV looks sweet in my pool-side Jungle room!

[bob_kark]

Hmmm... They told me this was on a volunteer basis only... Looks like I'll need to have a talk with my handler.

[DavidJames]

Hmmm... They told me this was on a volunteer basis only... Looks like I'll need to have a talk with my handler.You need a new agent. I hired the same one who represents Karl Rove.

[T.A.M.]

yah I know. I told a CTist over and Conspiracy Smasher that my pay for being a shill was 3 trillion last yaer, but I was only part time, so I didnt make as much as some, and wasnt entitled to the health benefits...lol

TAM

[Brainache]

They don't pay us too well in the peanut gallery I can tell you that. I had a vegemite sandwich for dinner tonight.

[bob_kark]

You need a new agent. I hired the same one who represents Karl Rove.
I knew I made a bad choice when I hired Jack Abramoff...

[jhunter1163]

I was led to believe there would be cookies. I haven't seen any yet.

[Brainache]

I was led to believe there would be cookies. I haven't seen any yet.

Or at the very least some Kool Aid and a choice of pills. Red or blue I can never remember...

[kookbreaker]

Or at the very least some Kool Aid and a choice of pills. Red or blue I can never remember...

I take both anyway. Really annoys rebels and Matrix alike.

[G-K-4]

911 Deniers = good guys

"We're the good guys, Michael."
http://www.the-trades.com/pictures/henrylost.JPG

[Loss Leader]

"We're the good guys, Michael."

That's exactly what this country needs. Let's blame 9/11 on Michael Emerson (http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2006/09/27/e092730A.jpg).

[Bell]

The problems with the document are rather obvious, but that doesnt mean I have to engage in pointing them out to critics

Translation: The evidence in the document must be rather obvious, but I'm too retarded and scared to read it.

I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent.

Translation: I'm too retarded to respond to logic and facts that work in the real world.

[Peephole]

That's exactly what this country needs. Let's blame 9/11 on Michael Emerson (http://jam.canoe.ca/Television/2006/09/27/e092730A.jpg).
He's always up to no good.
http://users.pandora.be/peephole/emoticons/emot-argh.gif

[Architect]

They don't pay us too well in the peanut gallery I can tell you that. I had a vegemite sandwich for dinner tonight.

You mean that Vegemite exists outside of "Men at Work" lyrics?!? :eek:

[Hellbound]

You mean that Vegemite exists outside of "Men at Work" lyrics?!? :eek:

Yes.

But it's banned by the Geneva Conventions.

[bob_kark]

Yes.

But it's banned by the Geneva Conventions.
Covered by that whole "crimes against humanity" part, right?

I hear they used it at Gitmo though... I'm so ashamed of our government.

[G-K-4]

He's always up to no good.
I'll blame "Henry" for the coverup. But it was Desmond's fault that the planes crashed, because he wasn't at his station in WTC 7 when the counter hit zero.

[Loss Leader]

I'll blame "Henry" for the coverup. But it was Desmond's fault that the planes crashed, because he wasn't at his station in WTC 7 when the counter hit zero.


Desmond was a patsy. I blame Alvar Hanso.

[Brainache]

You mean that Vegemite exists outside of "Men at Work" lyrics?!? :eek:

Yes and it's delicious. Obviously an acquired taste. How could there be anything finer than a sandwich spread made from the scrapings of beer vats?

http://www.vegemite.com.au/

[Dog Town]

I knew it! That's Rumsfeld in the blue hat!

Yesss, but did you notice Bushie on his cell phone, under the BK sign?

ETA: Cookies, Pills...someone ?

[LashL]

Yes.

But it's banned by the Geneva Conventions.

(pause)


Really?!?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_111034530462f3a168.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1983)

[TruthSeeker1234]

(Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

[TheGrunion]

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Now that's a sentence! :jaw-dropp

[stateofgrace]

Now that's a sentence! :jaw-dropp

It's so big I can't even read it.

[Loss Leader]

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, ...



Who cares what it says? It's the closest Truthseeker1234 has ever come to being right! I feel like getting him a cake.

[Hellbound]

It's so full of blatant falsehoods and strawmen I don't know how it can support it's own weight.

ETA: But still closer to reality than anything "Truth"seeker has come up with up to this point.

Of course, oddly enough, such a statement by him makes it obvious he either has not read the NIST report and other accounts of what really happened, or has failed to understand them.

I'm giving 50/50 oddds to start.

[Dog Town]

Man...he is sooooe close! Maybe not Gravy persay, but...

[LashL]

Interesting.

Now, if only BS1234 could articulate his own theory so succinctly. Oddly enough, he refuses to do so.

How about it, "truth"seeker? Please articulate your theory in a similarly succinct fashion.

[Brainache]

I notice he still refuses to see the large chunks of concrete in the enormous pile of debris.

He doesn't see the remains of the landing gear in the inner ring at the Pentagon.

Does it seem that Truthseeker is seeking the truth? Looks to me like he has decided already what is true and only sees what he wants.*







*I know it has been said before, but what the hell? Once more can't hurt.

[LashL]

I notice he still refuses to see the large chunks of concrete in the enormous pile of debris.

He doesn't see the remains of the landing gear in the inner ring at the Pentagon.

Does it seem that Truthseeker is seeking the truth? Looks to me like he has decided already what is true and only sees what he wants.*







*I know it has been said before, but what the hell? Once more can't hurt.

Like all "troofers", he sees only what he wants to see and ignores the facts and evidence.

[Foolmewunz]

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

Now isn't this amazing? For over a month, now, we've been trying to get WaggaWagga1234 to enumerate his position in, and he's failed to do so, notwithstanding the 5,342 requests (I think Claus even chimed in with "Evidence?" once or twice), he has failed to do so.

The above is the TS1234 wet dream! This is the kind of statement he wants someone to make so he can debate, debate debate!

Tell ya what Troofy, why don't you write us another run-on sentence with your theory. We've all told you ours often enough. Give it ten minutes. Write the numbers one through 20 on the left side of you Big Boy Coloring Tablet, and then fill in what it is you actually believe or "observed", if you prefer. Feel free to cite Gordon Ross as often as you like.

:HONGKONG:

[TruthSeeker1234]

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behind a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

Well, is this statement correct or not? Let's fix it and make it the perfect officlal story summary. We can break it up and number it if you want.

[Abbyas]

billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano

Good grief.

Well, is this statement correct or not? Let's fix it and make it the perfect officlal story summary. We can break it up and number it if you want.

You are drunk right now, aren't you.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, is this statement correct or not? Let's fix it and make it the perfect officlal story summary. We can break it up and number it if you want.

You can break it up and number it (get help on the latter), and then tape it back together and fold it eight ways and put it where the sun don't shine, should you so desire (and I mean that in the nicest way possible). :crazy:

We don't have an official theory to offer you. We accept great huge chunks of the 9/11 Commission, whole bunches of Greening, many many portions of the NIST, and a whole lot of other things, no doubt. But we do not have a multi-bulleted JREF Sanctioned Official Non-Conspiracy Theory for you to trot back to the lodge brothers.

[Gravy]

I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.
I was referring to my paper on WTC 7. Do you have a sentence on that?

[Loss Leader]

Well, is this statement correct or not? Let's fix it and make it the perfect officlal story summary. We can break it up and number it if you want.

Why don't you spend that time writing down what your version would be? After hundreds and hundreds of posts, why don't you finally tell us what you claim happened? Then we can see if your claim is even possible in a universe where planets revolve around the sun and frozen water is less dense than liquid.

[twinstead]

I nominate troothydude1234's sentence to be posted in the Wikipedia entry for 'strawman' as a quintessential example of one.

[DavidJames]

IGravy, I think that's what you're working with.Actually what Gravy and others have to work with relative to WTC 1 & 2 is this: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

I know you don't like it cause it has a lot of big words and analysis and calculations from people who know how to make them and know what they mean. Something your side has no capability of understanding much less refuting. So rather then refute it, you raise creationist style "God of the Gaps" arguments.

Stop trying to reduce a very complex event into what you see in a video. You need to treat this event with the respect and diligence it requires. Are you able to move beyond the physics you learned in cartoons and forensics you learned on CSI? If not, then you will continue to be on the butt end of jokes.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I notice you are all running away from the official story as fast as you can. It looks pretty ridiculous, no doubt.

[Scientologist]

It's so big I can't even read it.


That's what she said.

[Scientologist]

I notice you are all running away from the official story as fast as you can. It looks pretty ridiculous, no doubt.


Dude, seriously. Get a girlfriend. Have S E X. Stop parading around the internet anonymously as if you are some sort of 9/11 Truth Super Hero Celebrity.

Its depressing.

[bob_kark]

I notice you are all running away from the official story as fast as you can. It looks pretty ridiculous, no doubt.
Wait, you mean this official story?:
I think it's that . . .

19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers, stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement, where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows, then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions, then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust, focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground, where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top, and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't), leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward, meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples, and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared, meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.
:dl:
Yes, we've finally turned our back on the insanity that you attributed to us. You've allowed us to finally see the light. From now on, we'll simply believe, like you and all the other Truthers that invisible pink unicorns demoed the WTC with nano-rainbows and pixie thermite dust. Now, let's dance in circles and sing Kumbaya!

[TruthSeeker1234]

OK, which part of my run-on sentence is not what you guys think happened? I'm seriously trying to get it right, so I can understand it. I spell it out, and now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

[DavidJames]

OK, which part of my run-on sentence is not what you guys think happened? I'm seriously trying to get it right, so I can understand it. I spell it out, and now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.Screw your sentence. Stop trying to put words in peoples mouths. Stop trying to simplify something that is inherently complex. Read the ***** NIST report.

Nevermind - You'd think after raising two kids and sending them to college I'd learn you can't argue with a 6 year old mind.

Carry on child, but be sure to brush your teeth and don't eat to much sugar before you go to bed.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I have read NIST, most of it, it took months. I've read FEMA, 9/11 commission, and seen the NOVA show. I've read the NIST FAQ and Popular Mechanics "debunking", the debunking 911 site and the 911 myths site. OK?

This is why I know your theory is specious. That is why none of you will state it or defend it.

The truth movement does not have a complete alternative theory, nor do we need to in order to prove the falsity of the official theory. We know the WTC was blown up, although we do not know exactly which kind of explosives. We know there was no plane in that hole in Shanksville, although we do not know what really happened.

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

Come to the bright side. We also have cookies.

[twinstead]

OK, which part of my run-on sentence is not what you guys think happened? I'm seriously trying to get it right, so I can understand it. I spell it out, and now you say I'm putting words in your mouth.

Dude. You're not a total idiot. You know exactly what you are doing; it's in the CT handbook for God's sake. The official story is spelled out in minute detail in the NIST report and others.

Perhaps you should show where in the official story, for example, it claims that where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby or pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths or another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself or any other of the lame strawman crap you posted?

It's as if, for example, we laughed at you and suggested that you think the plane that went into the Pentagon should have left an exact outline in the building of a jet airliner, just like a cartoon, and every square inch of the plane should have popped into the central courtyard already tagged, and every passenger should have been found strapped to their seats in the lunch room. Right?

[bob_kark]

If you have no evidence, how exactly do you know what happened? Does Sylvia Brown work for you all?

[twinstead]

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.



BS. And by the way, almost every structural engineer and demo expert on Earth will also say BS.

How can a situation like that lead you to declare the official story is provably false? If you mean provably false to those who are unqualified to even know, and are predisposed to believe it is false, then yes, you are right.

If you mean provably false to experts world-wide who have studied the event, then yea, I'll say it again. BS

[stateofgrace]

The truth movement does not have a complete alternative theory, nor do we need to in order to prove the falsity of the official theory. We know the WTC was blown up, although we do not know exactly which kind of explosives. We know there was no plane in that hole in Shanksville, although we do not know what really happened.

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.

Come to the bright side. We also have cookies.

You don't have a complete alternetive theory ? yet what you do have points to the US administration.

Tell you what TS, Just do this , in a few short sentenses put together what you think happened. No need to be specific, no need to name the explosives used. Just ,without sounding like a loony put together what you think happened.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was referring to my paper on WTC 7. Do you have a sentence on that?

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7 causing damage to the roof, and carving a 20-story hole in the south face, an injury which somehow escaped all photographs, except for the photographs held by NIST, which they have shown to the editors of Popular Mechanics and no one else, which ignited fires on two floors of the building, fires which eventually spread throughout the building due to the lack of firefighting effort, a decision which was precipitated by the loss of water pressure in lower Manhattan, so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighters out of the building" when there were no firefighters in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure) and at a time when speakers of standard English do not normally refer to human beings as "it", allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors), then suddenly, at around 5:20 p.m., copious quantities of smoke began pouring out of the south face of the building from every floor, and the invisible raging inferno significantly weakened the remaining undamaged vertical supports underneath the east penthouse, causing it to collapse completely and abruptly down onto the roof, and then, while no motion of any kind was visible on the outside of the building, a violent chain reaction was occuring within the building, and the vertical supports at the bottom of the building in the center gave way, allowing the main roof line to "kink" down in the middle, then all of the remaining veritcal supports on all four walls and throughout the highly asymmetrical structure gave way simultaneously, allowing the main roof line to begin falling down in what appears to all observers to be gravitational freefall, remaining remarkalby parallel to the ground through its rapid decent, imitating a classic controlled demolition in every facet, with the main roofline hitting the ground in about 6.5 seconds, something very close to (if not identical to) freefall with air resistence, initiating billowing clouds of smoke and dust which expanded along the concrete canyons of Manhattan, leaving a very small rubble pile (considering the size of the building), rubble which was almost completely contained within the footprint of the original structure, and which contained steel members that were partially evaporated (according to Jonathan Barnett) in a eutectic reaction, a phenomenon which was deemed "mysterious" in a New York Times article of November 29, 2001, an aritlce which has subsequently disappeared and been replaced by one which blames the whole thing on the obvious culprit - diesel fuel!

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

[Gravy]

I have read NIST, most of it, it took months. I've read FEMA, 9/11 commission, and seen the NOVA show. I've read the NIST FAQ and Popular Mechanics "debunking", the debunking 911 site and the 911 myths site. OK?
No, not "OK." If you've read all these things, then why do you insist, with every post you make, on completely misrepresenting what they say?

You know what that's called? Lying. Please stop doing it. Your lies neither impress us nor advance your argument.

[twinstead]

Okay, I take that back troothydude. You ARE an idiot.

By the way 'it' wasn't people, it was a thing. The FIREFIGHTING EFFORT.

And that's just the beginning of your mistakes. You think your little ignorant diatribe falsifies the official story? Please dont tell me you think your strawman can do that.

I think the only reason you won't come up with your own theory is because any one of us could come up with a run-on sentence even more crazy sounding about IT than you did about the official story.

Yippee! It's a fun game; anybody can play it. Now if you'll go back to debunking, with logic and facts, a specific part of the NIST report you have a problem with?

Oh, and what about those experts world-wide who have studied the event? What would you say to any one of them if you met them face to face?

[Gravy]

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7...

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.
No, you got that wrong also. I highly recommend that you read my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my sig, so you don't make a fool of yourself like that again.

[R.Mackey]

Meanwhile, hundreds of tons of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted [...]

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

Well, you think wrong.

You made that up, admit it.

Tell you what. How about you read Gravy's paper, and then try again. And when you do it next time, write it properly, as a number of sentences.

Reference each sentence to something in Gravy's paper. Page number and paragraph will be fine. Shouldn't take too long.

We'll look it over and correct you as needed.

This can be done. This will give you an accurate representation, at some level of granularity, of what we and the non-retarded 75% of the US believe happened. I have no problem at all with this process.

What you've done so far, besides exposing your lack of research and tendency toward mystification, is create yet another unsupported strawman.

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8886453115a838f60.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1994)

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, you got that wrong also [that the official story maintains hundreds of tons of debris impacted WTC7]. I highly recommend that you read my paper on WTC 7, which is linked in my sig, so you don't make a fool of yourself like that again.

I have searched the Gravy paper, there appear to be no mentions of debris quantity. OK, I'll change it to "an unknown quantitiy of debris". Is that better?

[twinstead]

What you've done so far, besides exposing your lack of research and tendency toward mystification, is create yet another unsupported strawman.

Sadly, what this means is he cannot refute the official story without making a caricature of it.

Without it being 'cartoonized', he can't falsify it. It's as simple as that.

[TruthSeeker1234]

WTC7 summary, ver 2.0


Meanwhile, an unknown quantity of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7 causing damage to the roof, and carving a 20-story hole in the south face, an injury which somehow escaped all photographs, except for the photographs held by NIST, which they have shown to the editors of Popular Mechanics and no one else, which ignited fires on two floors of the building, fires which eventually spread throughout the building due to the lack of firefighting effort, a decision which was precipitated by the loss of water pressure in lower Manhattan, so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighting effort out of the building" when there was no firefighting effort in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure), allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors), then suddenly, at around 5:20 p.m., copious quantities of smoke began pouring out of the south face of the building from every floor, and the invisible raging inferno significantly weakened the remaining undamaged vertical supports underneath the east penthouse, causing it to collapse completely and abruptly down onto the roof, and then, while no motion of any kind was visible on the outside of the building, a violent chain reaction was occuring within the building, and the vertical supports at the bottom of the building in the center gave way, allowing the main roof line to "kink" down in the middle, then all of the remaining veritcal supports on all four walls and throughout the highly asymmetrical structure gave way simultaneously, allowing the main roof line to begin falling down in what appears to all observers to be gravitational freefall, remaining remarkalby parallel to the ground through its rapid decent, imitating a classic controlled demolition in every facet, with the main roofline hitting the ground in about 6.5 seconds, something very close to (if not identical to) freefall with air resistence, initiating billowing clouds of smoke and dust which expanded along the concrete canyons of Manhattan, leaving a very small rubble pile (considering the size of the building), rubble which was almost completely contained within the footprint of the original structure, and which contained steel members that were partially evaporated (according to Jonathan Barnett) in a eutectic reaction, a phenomenon which was deemed "mysterious" in a New York Times article of November 29, 2001, an aritlce which has subsequently disappeared and been replaced by one which blames the whole thing on the obvious culprit - diesel fuel!

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

[Pardalis]

so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighters out of the building" when there were no firefighters in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure) and at a time when speakers of standard English do not normally refer to human beings as "it"

"It" could just as easily meant "the firefighter's operation at WTC7". I'm not even an anglophone and I understood that from the beginning. :rolleyes:

TS, stop cherry picking Gravy's paper, you're theories about 9/11 are impossible.

[Gravy]

I have searched the Gravy paper, there appear to be no mentions of debris quantity. OK, I'll change it to "an unknown quantitiy of debris". Is that better?
I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?

ETA: Ah, R.Mackey beat me to it.

[twinstead]

LOL yea, that fixed it.

Again. You can't falsify the official story without 'cartoonizing' it, can you?

And, you realize we could do that with any alternative theory you have right? (I can just picture the fun we could have with the stealth ninjas planting explosive charges in all 3 buildings under the noses of thousands of people)

[R.Mackey]

I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?

Bingo.

The only purpose to be had in "summarizing" your paper is that, that way, he doesn't have to take it on directly.

He knows he can't debunk the paper, so he has to make up something and hope we won't notice.

That tactic probably works among the "Scholars for Truth", but it won't work here.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I wasn't referring to debris quantity. I cut out the rest of your quote for brevity. I just wanted to make it clear that I was responding to your WTC 7 comment.

Read my paper. Then comment on what is says. Sound reasonable, "Truth"Seeker?

Or are you afraid of what you'll learn?


I read your paper Gravy. Very nicely written, well researched. Hard-hitting, yet conversational. It's great. You have a flair.

My summary was in response to your question " (Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)?"

I think that is a great question. What is your theory? I am trying to state it, and everybody else here is noticing how absurd it is, and blaming me for it! Guys, it ain't my theory.

[Pardalis]

TS, I would call your "summaries" of Gravy's paper blatant strawmen... But I'm not an aficionado in "strawman".

But be careful with such big strawmen, I hope you don't smoke.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Bingo.

The only purpose to be had in "summarizing" your paper is that, that way, he doesn't have to take it on directly.

He knows he can't debunk the paper, so he has to make up something and hope we won't notice.

That tactic probably works among the "Scholars for Truth", but it won't work here.

I haven't seen such intellectually dishonest ******** since Killtown's Plume thread. No wonder they can't hold a decent discussion on the matter; they simply can not wrap their brains around what the evidence based conclusion is that most people accept.

[Gravy]

Bingo.

The only purpose to be had in "summarizing" your paper is that, that way, he doesn't have to take it on directly.

He knows he can't debunk the paper, so he has to make up something and hope we won't notice.

That tactic probably works among the "Scholars for Truth", but it won't work here.
Sometimes I think we need a roadside sign for these CTs that says "Welcome to the JREF Conspiracy Theories Forums. We Notice Things."

TS has 466 posts, most of which have to do with arguing against strawmen that he invents, or avoiding answering direct questions about claims he makes. Extraordinary.

TS: ready to tell us what explosive can cause the effects that you posit, or do you need some more time?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I haven't seen such intellectually dishonest ******** since Killtown's Plume thread.


Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

[Gravy]

I read your paper Gravy. Very nicely written, well researched. Hard-hitting, yet conversational. It's great. You have a flair.

My summary was in response to your question " (Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)?"

I think that is a great question. What is your theory? I am trying to state it, and everybody else here is noticing how absurd it is, and blaming me for it! Guys, it ain't my theory.
Nor is it mine. I'm glad you read my paper. What, specifically, would you like to discuss about it?

[bob_kark]

I read your paper Gravy. Very nicely written, well researched. Hard-hitting, yet conversational. It's great. You have a flair.

My summary was in response to your question " (Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)?"

I think that is a great question. What is your theory? I am trying to state it, and everybody else here is noticing how absurd it is, and blaming me for it! Guys, it ain't my theory.
Holy handgrenade! You must be on your third set of lungs to be able to blow that much smoke! Your lack of integrity is truly astounding. Well played sir, well played.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

Everything after I think it's that . . .

19 and WTC7 summary, ver 2.0

[T.A.M.]

WTC7 summary, ver 2.0


Meanwhile, an unknown quantity of debris from the "collapsing" WTC1 impacted the 47 story WTC7 causing damage to the roof, and carving a 20-story hole in the south face, an injury which somehow escaped all photographs, except for the photographs held by NIST, which they have shown to the editors of Popular Mechanics and no one else,

So do you have any photographs of the south side of WTC 7 that do not show any damage? If so, bring them forward. If not, shut up talking through your anus about it.


which ignited fires on two floors of the building, fires which eventually spread throughout the building due to the lack of firefighting effort, a decision which was precipitated by the loss of water pressure in lower Manhattan,


Sounds good to me, but I havent read Gravy's paper yet.


so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander and said "Maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it", meaning "pull the firefighting effort out of the building" when there was no firefighting effort in the building (owing to the loss of water pressure),

I would revise this part of your summary as follows,

...so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander, and said, that they should pull back the firefighting/rescue operation, which though not fighting the actual fire, was still near the building, so that there would be no further loss of life...


allowing the raging inferno to completely engulf the building while showing no visible flames (except at the aforementioned 2 floors),

So are you saying Gravy has stated there are no visible flames at the time of the raging infernos, except on two floors. If not, you are putting words in his mouth, and you are not summarizing his paper, but rather injecting your own evidenceless, baseless view into it.


then suddenly, at around 5:20 p.m., copious quantities of smoke began pouring out of the south face of the building from every floor, and the invisible raging inferno significantly weakened the remaining undamaged vertical supports underneath the east penthouse, causing it to collapse
completely and abruptly down onto the roof,

SO here, you have added what, that the inferno is invisible, as I am sure Gravy did not say this, and I doubt he said that "sudddenly at 5:20" smoke began to pour out of the south face.


and then, while no motion of any kind was visible on the outside of the building, a violent chain reaction was occuring within the building, and the vertical supports at the bottom of the building in the center gave way, allowing the main roof line to "kink" down in the middle, then all of the remaining veritcal supports on all four walls and throughout the highly asymmetrical structure gave way simultaneously, allowing the main roof line to begin falling down in what appears to all observers to be gravitational freefall, remaining remarkalby parallel to the ground through its rapid decent, imitating a classic controlled demolition in every facet, with the main roofline hitting the ground in about 6.5 seconds, something very close to (if not identical to) freefall with air resistence,

Free fall can only occur in a frictionless vacuum scenario, you idiot. So identical, as you have suggested possibly, is infact IMPOSSIBLE.

your description doesn't sound anything like what I have read from Gravy in the past. I think your making this up


initiating billowing clouds of smoke and dust which expanded along the concrete canyons of Manhattan, leaving a very small rubble pile (considering the size of the building), rubble which was almost completely contained within the footprint of the original structure, and which contained steel members that were partially evaporated (according to Jonathan Barnett) in a eutectic reaction, a phenomenon which was deemed "mysterious" in a New York Times article of November 29, 2001, an aritlce which has subsequently disappeared and been replaced by one which blames the whole thing on the obvious culprit - diesel fuel!

What pages in Gravy's paper can I find the above little snipet?

You get worse, the longer you are here. For your sake, and the sake of the movement which, despite your refusal to admit, you represent (the twoofers), you should just hang it up and go on with your life.

TAM

[TruthSeeker1234]

TS: ready to tell us what explosive can cause the effects that you posit, or do you need some more time?

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

[twinstead]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".


you have been given many.

I think if you take out all of the exaggeration and strawman building, you would be left with about 3 words.

A good example is when you say the damage to WTC has no photos. Gravy has posted some in this very forum, and has them in his paper. Also, you ignore the DOZENS of eye witness accounts of said damage. Are all those people lying?

Do you think perhaps when you tie in the photographic evidence and eye witness testimony of what was going on in WTC7 before the collapse it might make more sense than just declaring "there were no photos" and making it seem like that's all we are basing the theory on?

Cartoonizing.

[Scientologist]

OK, let me just say this one more time as it appears as though I was completely ignored the first time.


Truthseeker, GET LAID. Stop researching 9/11 and GET LAID. Concentrate your efforts on GETTING LAID. If you are not the ogre I am thinking you are and if you are able to talk to a woman without mentioning CONCRETE CORES or FREEFALL SPEEDS, I can assure you that GETTING LAID will make everything better.

If you need some tips, feel free to pm me. I promise that, if you are capable of GETTING LAID, you will wake up in the morning and all of this 9/11 conspiracy drivel will be meaningless to you. Dear God, I can only imagine how much of your life you have spent on the internet talking about the goddamn twin towers and the 9/11 conspiracy. What a waste of *********** space. Do you realize when you are old and grey (I'm assuming that you cannot be that old yet because usually old people have some semblance of wisdom), you will hate yourself for spending your youth hunched over your computer trying to prove people that are much smarter than you are wrong?

First step: Look at yourself in the mirror and just admit that you are wrong.

[twinstead]

I do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

And what is your response to anybody, even those more qualified than little ol' you, who looks at the same evidence as you but disagrees?

Quite an arrogant position for just some dude posting on a web forum.

[Pardalis]

Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know.

snip

Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. I don't know.

But yet, somehow...

I do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

Wow!

[T.A.M.]

So what about the Leprachauns? There is a lot of published literature on these guys, and they surely are small enough to get in, un-noticed. Especially with their majik. I am sure they could have planted the horizontal acting Thermite. As well, they could explain the removal of the Billions of Gold.

JHC, if you are willing to entertain the extremely unlikely, unfounded, evidenceless, baseless scenarios you have suggested above, than why not Leprachauns. They have more evidence on their side.

TAM:D

[bob_kark]

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.
:dl:

[R.Mackey]

Dishonest? Please, tell me which part of these official story summaries you guys disagree with, and I'll take them out. I already fixed the "pull it" thing to say "firefighting effort".

Dude, I already showed you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2000729#post2000729) how to do it right. You haven't produced anything solid enough to edit so far.

This will take a little time, of course. It's called "work." It's good for you.

[Scientologist]

Can someone tell me how anyone with a working brain would think that the US government and thousands of other people would build this intricate plan to demolish the twin towers and then Larry Silverstein would just RUIN it by going on the air and admitting it?

Not even a fart would follow that logic train.

[Pardalis]

usually old people have some semblance of wisdom

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember Fetzer? There were to my knowledge two elderly posters here by the names of Sir Knight and Christopher7... Not the most wise people I've encountered.

Besides, alot of our politicians are over 60. :D

[Gravy]

I don't posit these effects, I observe them. Great question. Gravy, we don't know what explosives were used. If NIST had tested for them, we would know. The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem. bottom line: We don't know.

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.
Thank you for finally answering that you have no idea what explosives could cause the pyroclastic flow, powderization, and shredded steel that you posit.

Now, specifically what about my WTC 7 paper would you like to discuss? I'm right here, right now, TS. Let's go. Stop with the strawmen and deal with what's right there on the page. Now.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I would revise this part of your summary as follows,

...so the owner of the building spoke to a fire commander, and said, that they should pull back the firefighting/rescue operation, which though not fighting the actual fire, was still near the building, so that there would be no further loss of life...

I can't put false stuff in there TAM, he said "pull it" not "pull back". Sorry, no.



So are you saying Gravy has stated there are no visible flames at the time of the raging infernos, except on two floors. If not, you are putting words in his mouth, and you are not summarizing his paper, but rather injecting your own evidenceless, baseless view into it.

SO here, you have added what, that the inferno is invisible, as I am sure Gravy did not say this, and I doubt he said that "sudddenly at 5:20" smoke began to pour out of the south face.



Free fall can only occur in a frictionless vacuum scenario, you idiot. So identical, as you have suggested possibly, is infact IMPOSSIBLE.

your description doesn't sound anything like what I have read from Gravy in the past. I think your making this up

What pages in Gravy's paper can I find the above little snipet?

TAM

No, you misunderstand. I am not reviewing Gravy's paper. That could also be done. I was responding to Gravy's Request. He requested

(Psst! Will somebody tell me what my theory is?)

-Gravy



I am trying to honor that request. You guys seem to, for the most part, be understanding how ludicrous the official theory of events actually is.

[bob_kark]

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember Fetzer? There were to my knowledge two elderly posters here by the names of Sir Knight and Christopher7... Not the most wise people I've encountered.

Besides, alot of our politicians are over 60. :D
Folly is for the youth, crazy is forever.

[Pardalis]

Can someone tell me how anyone with a working brain would think that the US government and thousands of other people would build this intricate plan to demolish the twin towers and then Larry Silverstein would just RUIN it by going on the air and admitting it?

Not even a fart would follow that logic train.

It seems that anyone who is willing to convince itself of something, can actually do it. Even intelligent people. This is exactly how cults and sects operate.

[Pardalis]

Folly is for the youth, crazy is forever.

Yes, I would think Foley is for the youth... :D

[Gravy]

I'm not getting any younger, TS.

Now, specifically what about my WTC 7 paper would you like to discuss? I'm right here, right now, TS. Let's go. Stop with the strawmen and deal with what's right there on the page. Now.

[twinstead]

I am trying to honor that request. You guys seem to, for the most part, be understanding how ludicrous the official theory of events actually is.

No. We are understanding how ludicrous your interpretation of the official story is, and how arrogant you are about being totally sure you are right while holding an obviously untenable position.

[T.A.M.]

TS:

You were not being honest. An honest answer would be to take all the arguments, from Gravy's perspective, and summarize them. You interjected your own, baseless, evidenceless speculations in to the summary, to make his theories look silly. That is dishonest.

As well, you note, when I made the comment of Larry wanting to pull back, it wasnt in quotes. That is because "pull back" was my opinion, and that of many Debunkers, as to what Larry likely meant by "pull it" at that time. It certainly has as much evidence behind it as does the silly CT angle on it. And since you were suppose to be summarizing Gravy's theory, and he is a debunker, i would suggest that my take on it is likely more in keeping with his thoughts, than your suggestion.

TAM:D

[T.A.M.]

A:The widely held view of the majority of the public, and most here on this forum:

On 9/11/01, 19 Hijackers, through the logistical and financial help of Al-Qaeda, carried out a terrorist attack on the mainland United States. It involved the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners, and then the flying of said airliners into the hijackers preselected targets, with the exception of one of the flights, UA93, which had its plans thwarted by the passengers onboard.

The targets that were struck were, the WTCs 1 & 2, as well as the Pentagon.

Subsequent to the attacks on the WTCs, the buildings themselves collapsed, some 50-70 minutes after the intitial impacts, due to a combination of (1) severing of exterior and interior weight bearing columns by the planes, (2) removal of much of the fireproofing from the steel, and (3) superheated fires, initiated by the jet fuel, maintained and superheated through the burning of building contents such as carpets, plastics, furniture, etc... These three factors led to (1) an increase weight load placed upon the remaining intact columns and support structures, and (2) weakening of those columns and other support structures via the intense heat produced by the fires. This initiated a collapse of the floors at the sites of impact. Once this collapse was initiated, the collapse of the entire building occured, with very little resistance offered from the structure below the impact floors, and a resulting NEAR free fall time of collapse.

At all the sites, the dead, including hijackers have been identified via DNA or process of elimination. Debris from the airplanes has been found and catalogued in all 4 crash sites.

------

The above theory has been agreed upon by hundreds of qualified engineers and scientists.


B:The theory believed by at most a 50,000-100,000 people, calling themselves "truthers", is as follows:

On 9/11/2001, after months of planting explosives secretively in the WTC 1, 2, and 7, the USG had 4 commerical airliners, with passengers on board, detoured to a secret location. At that point, 4 "drone" aircraft, similar in shape and size to the airliners, were sent up, and these airliners then proceeded to crash into WTC1,2 and the Pentagon (maybe, see below). The 4th Airliner, for some unknown reason was just crashed into an abandoned field in Shanksville, causing no loss of life.

The passengers from the 4 original flights were then either (a) all put into a witness protection plan, where none of them, not one, ever disobeyed and told their families the truth, or (b) were all killed by the USG at some other location.

Back at the attack sites, the buildings that were struck by the drones, but were previously rigged in secret over months of work, were then detonated into collapse by a Controlled Demolition, from the top down, a style of demolition never used before, assisted, at least in part, by thermite, a chemical never previously used in controlled demolition.

7 hours later, because he didn't like the papers that were stored inside, Larry Silverstein had WTC 7 brought down by Controlled Demolition, right under the noses of the fire department, and apparently with their assistance.

At the Pentagon a missile was used to cause the attack, either sent from some unknown locale, or via a "fly over" aircraft (possibly one of the drone aircrafts other truthers have suggested).

-----

The above theory has been agreed upon only by the "truthers" with no experts agreeing with them. There is no physical evidence to prove the above theory, and no witnesses testify to the use of thermite. No witnesses have testified to seeing any explosives used. I apologize if the second theory seems pasted together and incoherent, but the "truthers" have never been able to agree on anything close to a unified theory of what they feel happened on 9/11.

TAM;)

[Gravy]

Well, it's been a half-hour since I asked TS to bring up something specific about my WTC paper to discuss. Surprise, surprise, he couldn't think of anything.

Could his act be any more pathetic?

[R.Mackey]

Well, it's been a half-hour since I asked TS to bring up something specific about my WTC paper to discuss. Surprise, surprise, he couldn't think of anything.

Could his act be any more pathetic?
Sure it could! He might, for instance, challenge us all to debate, and then wimp out completely...

oh, wait...

[TruthSeeker1234]

Now, specifically what about my WTC 7 paper would you like to discuss? I'm right here, right now, TS. Let's go. Stop with the strawmen and deal with what's right there on the page. Now.

OK. In the Gravy paper, we find:

Steven Jones claims to have found traces of thermate (thermite with a small amount of sulfur and a large amount of barium nitrate added) on a
piece of steel from the WTC. This claim is baseless. Jones found some sulfur and other trace metals, and nothing could be less surprising.

Actually, based on his own tests AND the NIST documents, Jones reports not just sulfur, but also zinc, flourine (used in thermite) and, high concentrations of barium.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

For Gravy to ignore this is just yellow journalism at its worst. Shame on you Gravy.

[twinstead]

Oh good, a start

[Gravy]

OK. In the Gravy paper, we find:



Actually, based on his own tests AND the NIST documents, Jones reports not just sulfur, but also zinc, flourine (used in thermite) and, high concentrations of barium.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

For Gravy to ignore this is just yellow journalism at its worst. Shame on you Gravy.

Had you read the paper that R. Mackey and I referenced several times, you would know that the levels of barium found in the neighboorhood dust samples referenced by Jones were completely normal.

The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF (p. 709)Next.

[R.Mackey]

Actually, based on his own tests AND the NIST documents, Jones reports not just sulfur, but also zinc, flourine (used in thermite) and, high concentrations of barium.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

For Gravy to ignore this is just yellow journalism at its worst. Shame on you Gravy.

If you're talking about Page 49 of that oft-repeated trainwreck, there's several errors:

1. The "high concentrations" of Barium, assuming Jones didn't screw up or lie, were found in WTC dust, not fused in slag or on any column

2. Barium concentrations are in the 100 to 1000 ppm (that's 0.1 to 0.01%) range. No error bars are cited. Thermate should show a very high (20%+) signal in a slag sample, and nothing like this has been found.

3. There are much higher concentrations of other random elements. Zinc for starters. Jones actually claims on the same page (49) "Zinc oxide would be a good choice to add to thermate." By his reasoning, there are a multitude of things that would be a "good choice." Why zinc? Nobody adds zinc! No point! Nobody adds TNT, either!

4. Jones has made no attempt to ascertain other potential sources of zinc and barium. Barium is a component of fluorescent lamps, among other things, and thus should have been present in large quantities in the WTC site. Zinc is commonly used in steel itself.

5. Even if we take him at face value, his "evidence" is purely circumstantial. But as we see above, we have no reason to take him at face value.

There's your "yellow journalism." And your double-standard.

[jhunter1163]

I'd like to see R. Mackey argue the pro-leprechaun case. I bet he'd make it sound at least plausible. Just for fun. I know he's got FAR better things to do with his time, but I still think he could make a better case than TS1234.

[boloboffin]

Had you read the paper that R. Mackey and I referenced several times, you would know that the levels of barium found in the neighboorhood dust samples referenced by Jones were completely normal.

Next.

:D

Please, Gravy, don't hurt him.

[Skibum]

I'd like to see R. Mackey argue the pro-leprechaun case. I bet he'd make it sound at least plausible. Just for fun. I know he's got FAR better things to do with his time, but I still think he could make a better case than TS1234.

A pro-Leprechaun case would be silly, everyone knows it was

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102814531342d019a1.jpg

GREMLINS.

[T.A.M.]

heh...

Dont be dissing the leprachaun theory. It is proven, 100% true, no debating needed.

Now prove to me it wasn't leprachauns...that would be a challenge.

TAM:)

[Skibum]

Now prove to me it wasn't leprachauns

Well, you do have a point. I heard that there was an abnormal amout of shamrocks found in the dust at the WTC. I may have read that in one of Prof. Jones papers.

[Architect]

I'd like to see R. Mackey argue the pro-leprechaun case. I bet he'd make it sound at least plausible. Just for fun. I know he's got FAR better things to do with his time, but I still think he could make a better case than TS1234.

You're all wrong about Leprechauns. At the risk of being a bit ethnic, It was the sidhe. They're right evil buggers, especially that female one keening away on my roof..... :)

[T.A.M.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidhe

Cause I know I had to go look it up, so have a gander...lol

TAM

Edit: and don't worry, i do not usually use Wiki as a reference, just this time...lol

[Architect]

Yup, you forget to leave out the saucer of milk (hell, why would sidhe need that, sheesh) or fall asleep on an innocuous chambered cairn and before you know it they demolish the Twin Towers.

They were probably in league with the Kelpies.

Feltzer can now reveal himself to be Finn MacChuill (spellings vary), awaken from his slumber together with the 7 armies of the CT Fianna in order to save the world once more.

A glen in a step, a hill in a stride and a whole league or more in a running leap........



<Well you'd never guess I was Gaelic, eh?>

[Blackadder_no]

You're all wrong about Leprechauns. At the risk of being a bit ethnic, It was the sidhe. They're right evil buggers, especially that female one keening away on my roof..... :)

Perhaps. But are they as hardy as the Nac Mac Feegle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nac_Mac_Feegle)? ;)

[Architect]

Now you've got it! Sinn agad e!

It's the NWO......that's Nether World Order.

[Polaris]

Pound for pound, they seem older, more educated, and more articulate than their American counterparts. I actually took John White for a "moderate LIHOP'er" and even gave him credit as such on this forum...but then I read some of his chemtrail posts and visited his website http://www.illusionsforum.com/ and the mirage of potential vanished in a desert of woo.

That's just their accents - don't let them fool you. :D

[T.A.M.]

Well if we are all going to derail this thread, at least we made it informative and cultural...lol

TAM

[Polaris]

Yes.

But it's banned by the Geneva Conventions.

It gives jumping spiders gingevitis?

[Architect]

Well if we are all going to derail this thread, at least we made it informative and cultural...lol

TAM


<Feltzer>

Now look at these basalt rock formations.....perfect octagons, in not one but two seperate locations, on either side of the Irish Sea and only a short distance from nuclear power plants. Common sense tells us that these can't be natural. They HAVE to be sidhe-made. I've looked at these basalts with a geiger counter and I tell you, the readings are high. This is where the sidhe tested their mini-nukes for the towers.

</Feltzer>

[Polaris]

I think

Liar

it's that . . .19 kamikazee muslims hijacked 4 commercial airliners and flew 1 each into WTC1, WTC2, the Pentagon and Shanksville, causing massive damage to the perimeter and core columns of the twin towers.

Yup

stripping off the fireproofing and igniting raging fires and sending an unignited stream of jet fuel down an elevator shaft all the way to the basement,.

Creating an accidental fuel-air situation which cause a vapor explosion - which can be more powerful than plastic explosive.

where it jumped to another elevator shaft, reversed direction and came up to the lobby, ignited and blew out the windows,.

Didn't have to, the explosion would have been powerful enough to do that from below ground.

then the aforementioned raging fires heated up the floor trusses to the point where they sagged and pulled inwards on the heated core and perimeter columns, eventually breaking them which caused the mass of the tower above to come crashing down on the floor below, pulverizing almost all of the non-metallic material into fine powder.

Heated materials change their physical properties. Did you ever take a science class in your life, or put something in a microwave? And I saw lots of stuff in that rubble pile that was not fine powder. That's from your own photos.

and shredding all 287 steel columns into roughly 30 foot lengths and ejecting said powder and shredded steel hundreds of feet laterally in all directions,.

A. the "aforementioned powder" was a CT strawman, since it's obviously not true from a quick glance at a pic of the rubble. Not that something so obvious is good enough for a CTer - or else the "free fall" lie wouldn't exist. And real controlled demolitions don't pulverize everything non-metallic into fine dust, so even if this were true, how does this prove a conspiracy?

B. The material used to build the WTC was brought there on flatbed 18-wheelers, which use trailers of 30-40 feet. 30-foot lenghts are to be expected. How does this prove a conspiracy?

then continuing downwards and doing the same thing to the next floor, and the next (while appearing to jump in 4 or 5 floor increments), occasionaly advancing a floor assembly 20 stories ahead of the collapse wave in a "piston fashion" which simulatneouly crushed drywall into dust,.

Evidence of the 4-5 foot increments? After a few seconds the collapse is obscured in dust and smoke. Drywall doesn't exactly hold up to billions of tons falling straight down onto it.

focused this dust into a tight jet pattern and expelled it out exactly one window on each of two faces of the building, continuing to add mass and speed above the collapse front while this accumulating mass became invisible and showed no sign of itself, repeating the "jet plume" trick several more times, proceeding all the way to the ground,.

Where else would that air go? Invisible? What the hell are you talking about?

where the invisible accumulated pulverizing slegehammer of destruction finally disappeared altogether and left behing a chimney of smoke with a distinct mushroom top,

If you throw a puff ball mushroom it will puff into a mushroom cloud (no pun intended). I've seen mushroom clouds come out of dirt clods I've thrown. How else would you expect the smoke to behave? How does this prove a conspiracy?

and billowing clouds of dust which looked remarkably like the pyroclastic flows of a volcano (but which weren't).

Sulfuric acid looks like drinking water - thirsty?

leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers) which somehow imitated a blast furnace inside and melted steel down for months afterward,

14 stories high and 3 acres in area is very small? Considering the towers were mostly 1100 feet of air, that averages out to a little more than 10 feet of rubble for free-standing tower. I think that's about what I'd expect from a pancaking of the towers. And nobody said that was molten steel in that rubble - the recovery workers dipped steel buckets in whatever that was (my guess is aluminum) without having the buckets melt. That kinda tells me that wasn't steel.

meanwhile another jet crashed into the Pentagon leaving almost no sign of itself and no sign of its passengers yet somehow left DNA samples,

There was plenty of wreckage of the plane if you chose to look at the evidence. Not to mention bodies of passengers, and the knocked down light poles. And the witnesses by the hundreds. And the conspicuous absense of all those passengers by their families, work-places, friends, etc. And the conspicuous absense of an American Airlines 757.

and some round part of the aircraft travelled all the way through the building and stayed perfectly intact enough to punch a very round exit hole through reinforced concrete but then disappeared,

That would have been a landing gear. It never disappeared. The hole wasn't round until it was enlarged by emergency personnel. You either are lying about this or you are deliberately not looking at the evidence very closely. And the plane didn't punch all the way through the building. It punched through 3 of the 5 concentric rings.

meanwhile the forth jet crashed because brave passengers tried to wrestle control away from the hijackers and crashed the plane straight down into a field where it disintegrated and left no sign of itself whatsoever.

Engines, landing gear, chunks and fragments of fuselage, a smoking crater in the ground, personal effects of the passengers, pieces of the passengers, and the same conspicuous absense of that plane and all the passengers in their daily work and home lives are "no sign"? In the words of Mickey Rourke in Sin City, "here's a sign."

Gravy, I think that's what you're working with.

And guess what, it makes sense and fits the evidence. On the other hand, I could stick a sharpie in my ass with the tip sticking out, put on a pair of white briefs, do a bunch of jumping jacks on a trampouline, and come up with a more coherent theory than yours with what would be written on the inside of them.

[chipmunk stew]

You guys seem to, for the most part, be understanding how ludicrous the official theory of events [as twisted, mangled, distorted, raped, pillaged, and murdered by TS1234] actually is.
With the added qualifier, I agree.

[Gravy]

On the other hand, I could stick a sharpie in my ass with the tip sticking out, put on a pair of white briefs, do a bunch of jumping jacks on a trampouline, and come up with a more coherent theory than yours with what would be written on the inside of them.Prove it.

[Polaris]

Prove it.

I don't have a trampouline, and I wear boxers.

[Architect]

I don't have a trampouline, and I wear boxers.

You can borrow our trampoline, and I'll splurge for a pair of boxers just for the hell of it. :)

[Gravy]

You can borrow our trampoline, and I'll splurge for a pair of boxers just for the hell of it. :)
Let's make it competitive.

"...And in the red corner...Jumpin' Jimmy Fetzer"

[tacodaemon]

I think you're all ignoring the mounting evidence of Burger King's complicity. This Burger King patron is NOT REACTING YET because HE KNEW IN ADVANCE!! He might as well be reading MY PET GOAT!

http://i10.tinypic.com/2nr3l0z.jpg

Can it be a COINCIDENCE that the attacks happened just six days after (http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2001/0001566189&EDATE=) Burger King outsourced its IT support to Bushitler's father's old nemesis Ross Perot?? And then one of the WTC towers had a suspicious IT "cabling upgrade"?

[stateofgrace]

We do know, with certainty, that explosives were used, because nothing else fits the observations.

You know absolutely nothing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...55553528290546 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546)

Please observe this video. The steel exterior buckles inwards. It is not blown out by explosives; it buckles inwards as the static weight above becomes dynamic.

Get some glasses or take some basic physics lessons.

[Polaris]

Let's make it competitive.

"...And in the red corner...Jumpin' Jimmy Fetzer"

It already is competitive. My sharpie-ass-literature needs to be more coherent than theirs. They've already made their attempt, it's called The New Pearl Harbor.

[TjW]

Okay, I think I've got a salable plot:
It was done with hydrogen.
A huge hydrogen tank in the sub-sub-sub basement was rigged to vent a stoichometric hydrogen-oxygen mixture very rapidly into the air and elevator shafts.
This explains the loud "explosions" in the basement as the burst diaphragm valves opened.
The mixture moves rapidly up through the building until it reaches the fires, which detonate it with a huge GNAB! (As everyone who has taken the freshman high school physics class knows, a stoichometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen implodes, because the two gases combine to form water, taking up considerably less volume than any gas.)
The underwhelming underpressure of the vacuum sucked in the sides of building, forcing the load bearing members out of column, and causing the collapse.
This also explains why there are all the hints of "an H-bomb in the basement".

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I think I've got a salable plot:
It was done with hydrogen.

I guarantee we see this on the LC forum within the week.

Although my vote still goes to the Klingon Bird of Prey (http://www.furryconflict.com/tech/technopedia/klingon/starfleet/brel_bird_of_prey.jpg).

[Skibum]

I'm starting to believe it possibly was leprechauns.
I found a video proving the existance of leprechauns.

-_EFIFBxW-k

[T.A.M.]

See, I told you so.

Think of the WTCs as the big pot of gold...that is why they did it.

TAM

[qarnos]

I'm starting to believe it possibly was leprechauns.
I found a video proving the existance of leprechauns.

-_EFIFBxW-k

I've got my leprechaun flute on standby.

HAVE YOU? :eek:

[Foolmewunz]

Bingo.

The only purpose to be had in "summarizing" your paper is that, that way, he doesn't have to take it on directly.

He knows he can't debunk the paper, so he has to make up something and hope we won't notice.

That tactic probably works among the "Scholars for Truth", but it won't work here.

And this surprises us,.... how? This is the same old three card monte routine. He wants us to make him a twelve point list of the JREF official/scientific version so that he can dee-bate.

TS - ain't gonna happen! Brighter minds than I have told you over and over again that the official version is contained in numerous documents, official and non... There is no Big Book of Buildings All Fall Down Go Boom.

[Bell]

I think you're all ignoring the mounting evidence of Burger King's complicity. This Burger King patron is NOT REACTING YET because HE KNEW IN ADVANCE!! He might as well be reading MY PET GOAT!

http://i10.tinypic.com/2nr3l0z.jpg

Can it be a COINCIDENCE that the attacks happened just six days after (http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2001/0001566189&EDATE=) Burger King outsourced its IT support to Bushitler's father's old nemesis Ross Perot?? And then one of the WTC towers had a suspicious IT "cabling upgrade"?

OMG!!1!!one!! What's that bulge on the side of the sign?

[Dog Town]

I've got my leprechaun flute on standby.

I prefer the Pan version myself. Played by half man, and half beast!

[stateofgrace]

I've got my leprechaun flute on standby.

HAVE YOU? :eek:

I have my hat, does that help?

http://www.houseoftheorangemonkey.co.uk/monkey/hats/images/leprechaun.jpg

[Foolmewunz]

(putting on my Sylvia Browne fingernails and best conspiratorial voice....)

I predict Wake Up in T-Minus five minutes (and counting). TS has returned from nap time and should be here momentarily!

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Foolmewunz]

False Alarm! The Truth Seeker Has Left The Building.

ETA: So, while we're waiting..... What do you think of avocados? I personally think they're delicious (except in Indonesia where they actually make a drink out of them), but more important.... just what the H are they? Fruit? Vegetable?
And does guacamole have any right to be so delicious?

These are the important things in my daily musings.

[qarnos]

False Alarm! The Truth Seeker Has Left The Building.

ETA: So, while we're waiting..... What do you think of avocados? I personally think they're delicious (except in Indonesia where they actually make a drink out of them), but more important.... just what the H are they? Fruit? Vegetable?
And does guacamole have any right to be so delicious?

These are the important things in my daily musings.

I've never been an avocado fan, but what about peanuts?

Are they a pea or a nut?

[Foolmewunz]

I've never been an avocado fan, but what about peanuts?

Are they a pea or a nut?

Whoa, dude! You must be psychic! I had originally headed my ETA with "What's with the alligator pear? It's not an alligator? It's not a pear?"

But then I realized that only certain parts of The States called them that, and in fact, I don't think I recall anyone using the term for an avocado since my salad days.

[hellaeon]

I think you're all ignoring the mounting evidence of Burger King's complicity. This Burger King patron is NOT REACTING YET because HE KNEW IN ADVANCE!! He might as well be reading MY PET GOAT!

http://i10.tinypic.com/2nr3l0z.jpg

Can it be a COINCIDENCE that the attacks happened just six days after (http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-05-2001/0001566189&EDATE=) Burger King outsourced its IT support to Bushitler's father's old nemesis Ross Perot?? And then one of the WTC towers had a suspicious IT "cabling upgrade"?

cabling upgrade? omg thats it! this is when the explosives where planted. Oh wow, what a buzz in my mind! You may have uncovered the biggest smoking gun...

[Architect]

I'm starting to believe it possibly was leprechauns.
I found a video proving the existance of leprechauns.



That's just what the Sidhe want you to think, you unsuspecting shperson..erm, sheople, erm, whatever...

[Mince]

[The Graduate]

"Don't you think that idea is a little half-baked?"

"Oh no, Dad, it's completely baked."

[/The Graduate]

[Gravy]

ETA: So, while we're waiting..... What do you think of avocados?
Apparently I want to kill them. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1971524&postcount=14)

They have to face the hard facts: there just isn't any other way to make guac. They must die.

[twinstead]

Where is troothydude1234, anyway? Doesn't he have a comment about the response to his 'scathing rebuke' of the 'obvious' evidence of thermate found?

[T.A.M.]

Gravy:

Pdoherty76 claims he is going to "Deconstruct" you (I assume he means your claims). His blog is here:

http://911debunkingthedebunkers.blogspot.com/

He says you are his next project. Normally I don't like to make gossip, but this guy has named you, so I thought I would do the same.



pdoherty76 said...

my bog started 16 hours ago, give it time. my next post is gonna deconstruct that schizo mark roberts. anyway the jenga quote is enough in itself

on SLC Blog
http://www.blogger.com/publish-comment.do?blogID=27396589&postID=116079374391853048&r=ok

TAM

[tsig]

I was led to believe there would be cookies. I haven't seen any yet.

This site has given me plenty cookies. Check with your committeman.

[T.A.M.]

Gravy:

Seems his "Deconstruct" of you is up on his blog (see link couple of posts above). Seems he thinks you are jealous of Alex Jones.

This guy, for someone with a Masters in Mathematical Physics, acts pretty juvenile. Well I guess noone ever said intellect = maturity.

TAM

[jhunter1163]

Silly me. I had cookies disabled.

[Gravy]

Gravy:

Seems his "Deconstruct" of you is up on his blog (see link couple of posts above). Seems he thinks you are jealous of Alex Jones.

This guy, for someone with a Masters in Mathematical Physics, acts pretty juvenile. Well I guess noone ever said intellect = maturity.
TAM
Cool. I've never been deconstructed before, except once by a guy who had a Masters in Nonmathematical Physics, but he was a mess.

I hope I can be put back together afterwards. Not sure why he said I was Jewish. Perhaps he'll write a bit on that. Correction. He was referring to people chanting "murderer" outside Silverstein's office, and commenting that Silverstein's Jewishness was irrelevant. Hmm, odd that the forum poster named "Treez," whose account I was using, mentioned being approached by "Some Jew looking dude," mere paragraphs before the passage I used. Just a coincidence, I guess. We all know there's no anti-Semitism in the "Truth Movement."

[Horatius]

, leaving behind a very small pile of rubble, (considering the size of the towers)

This is going back a ways in the thread, but I've been busy this weekend, and just now read this bit.

Take a look at this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6yK9XLRb1u8

Demolition of the Landmark Tower in Forth Worth, Texas, which left this as a debris pile:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/atomicglee/115419262/in/set-72057594084335155/

The debris pile where Landmark Tower once stood. Shorter than was predicted; apparently, the tower compacted into the trench to a greater degree than was anticipated



Look familiar?

[Scientologist]

Ok, so let's sum this up.

Truthseeker claims Mark's paper is bogus.

Mark asks which part specifically does TS disagree with.

Truthseeker stalls, reads a couple pages, finds ONE thing and posts it.

Mark destroys TS's ONE complaint about said paper.

Truthseeker logs off.


Dylan Avery's Scorecard:: CTS : 1 , JREF: 0

[Zygar]

Ok, so let's sum this up.

Truthseeker claims Mark's paper is bogus.

Mark asks which part specifically does TS disagree with.

Truthseeker stalls, reads a couple pages, finds ONE thing and posts it.

Mark destroys TS's ONE complaint about said paper.

Truthseeker logs off.


Dylan Avery's Scorecard:: CTS : 1 , JREF: 0

I think this is thread 4 about this paper, and at least the dozenth time BS1234 has used the same "**** and run" tactic. I'm pretty sure Avery's scorecard for this paper looks more like CTS : 18 , JREF: 0

[TruthSeeker1234]

First, I called attention to the Silverstein misquote, Gravy fixed it, nice job.

Next, I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

Next, what is up witht the NY times article of November 29 2001?

This article originally claimed "Steel Members Partly Evaporated". Now it appears to have been cleansed and the orginial flushed down the memory hole. Perhaps one of you can get Barnett to see if he remembers the original article. He won't answer me.

You have to mention the eutectic reaction, where the melting point of steel is lowered from the sulfur, as discussed here -

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


Can the sulfur from the drywall really form a eutectic with the steel?

Were the steel members really partly evaporated? Or is that a CT fabrication?

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication. True, if we start the clock when the penthouse collapses, we can get much longer collapse times. But this begs the question. When the main roofline begins moving, it takes 6.5 seconds for it to hit the ground. Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.

These are some points I'd like like to see addressed.

[R.Mackey]

Next, I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.
Why?

Jones's findings are not peer-reviewed, and his conclusions are wrong. We showed that already. Why do you insist that Gravy reference this non-work in his paper?

If Gravy references Jones, it's to show that Jones is guilty of bad science. That's the topic of a different paper. Jones's "findings" are totally irrelevant to understanding WTC 7, and that's what Gravy's paper is about.

Gravy is quite right not to include it. You could suggest he include it, but he doesn't have to. You jumping ahead and calling this non-omission "yellow journalism" is ridiculous.

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication. True, if we start the clock when the penthouse collapses, we can get much longer collapse times. But this begs the question. When the main roofline begins moving, it takes 6.5 seconds for it to hit the ground. Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.
No it's not.

Once you overload a structure, the load shifts. If the load is too much for a column, that means an even higher load shifts to the others, probably breaking them as well. And so on. This load shifting can take place at up to the speed of sound in materials, or approximately Mach 8. Ruddy fast.

To such an imprecise observer as MPEG-video from an unfavorable angle, further seen through the dim haze of preconceived notions, it can happen so fast as to be undetectable.

The penthouse collapse proves that other members failed before total collapse set in. Several seconds before. The structure gradually weakened until it hit a point of critical stability, and then the rest came down in a hurry.

If you don't like our answers, I suggest you talk to structural engineers. The ones in BYU's department would be fine, although I hear they don't support Jones's work either.

[LashL]

I brought out the mischaracterization of Jones on Barium. Jones says there was significant barium. Gravy says that the barium levels are normal. This is a valid opinion, I suppose, but to infer that Jones just ignores Barium is disingenuous. Gravy, you should quote Jones on barium, show his data, then criticize it. Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

Why should he? This paper is about WTC7 and Jones' alleged data is about WTC1 or WTC2. Moreover, Jones has changed his paper so many times without notating the changes (wholly unprofessional, don't you think?) that it is ridiculous to expect anyone to have to keep rereading it to see what his "new and improved" version at any given moment. In any event, it has nothing to do with WTC7, so your point is invalid as a criticism of Gravy's paper on WTC7.

Next, what is up witht the NY times article of November 29 2001?


You were asked to provide links to the two versions that you cited but you have, as yet, failed to do so.

You have to mention the eutectic reaction, where the melting point of steel is lowered from the sulfur, as discussed here -


There are no footnotes or sources cited in that link of yours. Where did the information come from? And what is unusual about the presence of sulphur?

Gravy calls the 6.5 second collapse time of WTC7 a fabrication.

That's because it is a fabrication, as is plain to anyone who eschews tin foil hats.

Plus, it matches free fall acceleration curve at every point along the way.

Since the building did not, in fact, fall at "free fall", this assertion of yours is silly.

The only way for that to occur is for all of the vertical supports on all four sides to fail at the same time. This is highly unlikely to occur from random causes, regardless of how extensive the random damage may be.


You have not demonstrated even the slightest bit of knowledge, education, or expertise to support anything that you have claimed on these boards since you arrived, and your assertions merely parrot conspiracy sites, without ever being able to back up any of your claims. Those with actual knowledge, education, and expertise have pointed out the fallacies in your assertions many times. Yet you still keep avoiding questions, running away from your own threads, and parroting things that you do not understand, and are, apparently, incapable of comprehending.

It does grow wearisome.

[Gravy]

Instead, at present, you have yellow journalism. You should fix it per my instructions, you'll have a better paper.

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

[Gravy]

That's because it is a fabrication, as is plain to anyone who eschews tin foil hats.
I did that once and got a crazy sensation in my dental fillings.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

And because I think you are right, and that TS doesn't know what it really means, I shall provide a definition

Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here TS, you want some sort of executive summary for what you're up against:

American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors (Figures 2-13 and 2-14), causing massive damage to the north face of the building within the
immediate area (Figure 2-15). At the central zone of impact corresponding to the airplane fuselage and
engines, at least five of the prefabricated, three-column sections that formed the exterior walls were broken
loose of the structure, and some were pushed inside the building envelope. Locally, floors supported by these
exterior wall sections appear to have partially collapsed, losing their support along the exterior wall. Away
from this central zone, in areas impacted by the outer wing structures, the exterior columns were fractured
by the force of the collision. Interpretation of photographic evidence suggests that from 31 to 36 columns on
the north building face were destroyed over portions of a four-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this
zone appear to have occurred over a horizontal length of wall of approximately 65 feet, while floors in other
portions of the building appear to have remained intact. Figure 2-16 shows the damage to the exterior
columns on the impacted face of WTC 1.
In addition to this damage at the building perimeter, a significant but undefined amount of damage also
occurred to framing at the central core. Interviews were conducted with persons who were present in offices on
the 91st floor of the building at the north face of the structure, three floors below the approximate zone of
impact. Their descriptions of the damage evident at this floor level immediately following the aircraft impact
suggest relatively slight damage at the exterior wall of the building, but progressively greater damage to the
south and east. They described extensive building debris in the eastern portion of the central core, preventing
their access to the easternmost exit stairway. This suggests the possibility of immediate partial collapse of
framing in the central core. These persons also described the presence of debris from collapsed partition walls
from upper floors in stairways located further to the west, suggesting the possibility of some structural damage
in the northwestern portion of the core framing as well. Figure 2-17 is a sketch made during an interview with
building occupants indicating portions of the 91st floor that could not be accessed due to accumulated debris.
It is known that some debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example,
life jackets and portions of seats from the aircraft were found on the roof of the Bankers Trust building,
located to the south of WTC 2. Part of the landing gear from this aircraft was found at the corner of West
and Rector Streets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-18). As this debris passed through
the building, it doubtless caused some level of damage to the structure across the floor plate, including,
potentially, interior framing, core columns, framing at the east, south, and west walls, and the floors
themselves. The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty. It is evident that,
despite this damage, the structure retained sufficient integrity and strength to remain globally stable for a
period of approximately 1 hour and 43 minutes.

[quote]
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,
around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed
out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented
energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The
modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in
these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100
°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe
systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these
systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed
that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have
quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement.
Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective.

As fire spread and raised the temperature of structural members, the structure was further stressed and
weakened, until it eventually was unable to support its immense weight. Although the specific chain of
events that led to the eventual collapse will probably never be identified, the following effects of fire on structures may each have contributed to the collapse in some way. Appendix A presents a more detailed
discussion of the structural effects of fire.
• As floor framing and supported slabs above and in a fire area are heated, they expand. As a structure expands,
it can develop additional, potentially large, stresses in some elements. If the resulting stress state exceeds
the capacity of some members or their connections, this can initiate a series of failures (Figure 2-20).
• As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag
into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs
become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) and allow
supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some
floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to
overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors,
local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns,
permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to
buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically
stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that
involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral
support over several stories (Figure 2-22).
• As the temperature of column steel increases, the yield strength and modulus of elasticity degrade
and the critical buckling strength of the columns will decrease, potentially initiating buckling, even
if lateral support is maintained. This effect is most likely to have been significant in the failure of the
interior core columns.

United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors. The zone of impact extended from near the southeast corner of the building across much of the building
face (Figures 2-24 and 2-25). The aircraft caused massive damage to the south face of the building in the
zone of impact (Figures 2-26 and 2-27). At the central zone of impact corresponding to the airplane fuselage
and engines, six of the prefabricated, three-column sections that formed the exterior walls were broken loose
from the structure, with some of the elements apparently pushed inside the building envelope. Locally, as
was the case in WTC 1, floors supported by these exterior wall sections appear to have partially collapsed.
Away from this central zone, in the areas impacted by the outer wing structures, the exterior steel columns were fractured by the impact. Photographic evidence suggests that from 27 to 32 columns along the south
building face were destroyed over a five-story range. Partial collapse of floors in this zone appears to have
occurred over a horizontal length of approximately 70 feet, while floors in other portions of the building
appeared to remain intact. It is probable that the columns in the southeast corner of the core also experienced
some damage because they would have been in the direct travel path of the fuselage and port engine (Figure 2-25).
It is known that debris from the aircraft traveled completely through the structure. For example, a
landing gear from the aircraft that impacted WTC 2 was found to have crashed through the roof of a building
located six blocks to the north, and one of the jet engines was found at the corner of Murray and Church
Streets. The extent to which debris scattered throughout the impact floors is also evidenced by photographs
of the fireballs that occurred as the aircraft struck the building (Figure 2-28). Figure 2-29 shows a portion of
the fuselage of the aircraft, lying on the roof of WTC 5.
As described for WTC 1, this debris doubtless caused some level of damage to the structure across the
floor plates, including interior framing; core columns at the southeast corner of the core; framing at the north,
east, and west walls; and the floor plates themselves. Figure 2-30, showing the eastern side of the north face
of the WTC 2 partially hidden behind WTC 1, suggests that damage to the exterior walls was not severe
except at the zone of impact. The exact extent of this damage will likely never be known with certainty. It is
evident that the structure retained sufficient integrity and strength to remain globally stable for a period of
approximately 56 minutes.
There are some important differences between the impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 and the impact
into WTC 1. First, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying much faster, with an estimated speed of 590 mph,
while American Airlines Flight 11 was flying at approximately 470 mph. The additional speed would have given the aircraft a greater ability to destroy portions of the structure. The zone of aircraft impact was skewed
toward the southeast corner of WTC 2, while the zone of impact on WTC 1 was approximately centered on
the building’s north face. The orientation of the core in WTC 2 was such that the aircraft debris would only
have to travel 35 feet across the floor before it began to impact and damage elements of the core structure.
Finally, the zone of impact in WTC 2 was nearly 20 stories lower than that in WTC 1, so columns in this
area were carrying substantially larger loads. It is possible, therefore, that structural damage to WTC 2 was
more severe than that to WTC 1, partly explaining why WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1.



The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
��An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
��Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up tothe east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors)resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation.


We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined,
and lethal.The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world
by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility toward us and
our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political
pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women. It makes no distinction
between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its
lexicon.
We learned that the institutions charged with protecting our borders,
civil aviation, and national security did not understand how grave this threat
could be, and did not adjust their policies, plans, and practices to deter or
defeat it.We learned of fault lines within our government—between foreign
and domestic intelligence, and between and within agencies.We learned of
the pervasive problems of managing and sharing information across a large and unwieldy government that had been built in a different era to confront
different dangers.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan, thanks for the summary, it was Gravy who requested it to be told what his theory was, but yes, this is useful to me.

[Horatius]

Once you overload a structure, the load shifts. If the load is too much for a column, that means an even higher load shifts to the others, probably breaking them as well. And so on. This load shifting can take place at up to the speed of sound in materials, or approximately Mach 8. Ruddy fast.

To such an imprecise observer as MPEG-video from an unfavorable angle, further seen through the dim haze of preconceived notions, it can happen so fast as to be undetectable.

The penthouse collapse proves that other members failed before total collapse set in. Several seconds before. The structure gradually weakened until it hit a point of critical stability, and then the rest came down in a hurry.


Just as another example of what a collapse looks like, consider the Tacoma Narrows Bridge:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8848571026603178234&q=tacoma+narrows

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3932185696812733207&q=tacoma+narrows

Just like Mackey said, once the load became too high, the structure failed along the whole length quite quickly.

[Regnad Kcin]

The official theory is provably false. The truth movement should indeed continue to pursue a complete alternative theory, and if you love your country, and are decent, moral, concerned about human liberty, then you will join us in trying to bring to the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. The totality of the available evidence points strongly in the direction of the current U.S. administration.1) Yourself

2) Get over

[TruthSeeker1234]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:

That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as
Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east
penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides
and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building.
Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actu-
ally get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven,
and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side
becauseit was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss
of support from below –first the east penthouse, then the center,
then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors
not moving “relative to one another.”

I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

[Gravy]

Arkan, thanks for the summary, it was Gravy who requested it to be told what his theory was, but yes, this is useful to me.
That's funny, TS, I thought you said you'd read the NIST report.

Why do you lie?

By the way, my question was rhetorical. I never put forth my own theory about WTC 7, which you would know if you had read my paper.

[Ducky]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:



I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

Are you going to offer any evidence of the falsehoods of your strawman list of Gravy's assertions?

[Gravy]

Some adssertions from the Gravy paper:

I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today
Wanna bet? Here's the section of my paper that TS is referring to (pages 80-81, photos not shown here):


The video Loose Change quick-cuts between WTC 7 collapsing and a building being demolished. This building is the Beirut Hilton. Play the original video with your computer’s sound on and find out why the creators of Loose Change don’t want you to hear the audio: http://tinyurl.com/oufj3

Watch and listen to another demolition, Schuylkill Falls Towers: http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
And another: Landmark Tower demolition http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
And another: Southwark Towers, Philadelphia: http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

In each case we hear the initiation charges, then the larger primary charges. Keep in mind that the buildings above underwent extensive structural weakening before their demolition. Absent such weakening, using explosives to bring down the WTC buildings would require charges of far greater magnitude. The use of such explosives would have been immediately apparent to everyone in the area, as well as to audiovisual and seismic recording equipment.

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

What about those “explosive squibs” coming from WTC 7 on video?

Steven E. Jones, among others, promotes that idea, and it’s as silly as 9/11 conspiracy claims get.

Squibs (horizontal puffs of smoke and debris) are
 observed emerging from WTC-7, in regular sequence,
 just as the building starts to collapse. (SEE:
 http://tinyurl.com/7drxn) Yet the floors have not
 moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify
 from the videos, so air-expulsion due to collapsing
 floors is excluded. I have personally examined many 
building demolitions based on on-line videos, and the
 presence of such squibs firing in rapid sequence as
 observed is prima facie evidence for the use of
 pre-positioned explosives inside the building. ...I conclude that the evidence for
 pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1
 and 2) is truly compelling. http://tinyurl.com/jpe9sI encourage everyone to read the whole page from which the Jones quote is taken. But don’t play “spot a false statement: drink a shot of Jack” – you will die. Jones’ “observations” and conclusions wouldn’t pass muster if they came from a junior-high school student. Note in particular his “experiment” in which he drops a block of concrete on another from a height of 12 feet and concludes that it’s “nonsense!” that concrete could pulverize when a billion-pound, quarter-mile high building crashes down! Can Jones, a physicist, possibly be that ignorant? Is he putting us on?

Here’s a still from the cropped, low-quality video that Jones wants us to see (http://tinyurl.com/7drxn)

Is there some reason that Steven Jones doesn’t want us to see a good quality video of this event, which is just as easy to find on the internet as a poor-quality video? Judge for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/qbvl6

There are a few things that Jones neglects to show us with his highly selective video:
– That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building. Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss of support from below – first the east penthouse, then the center, then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors not moving “relative to one another.”

I’d love to hear Jones explain why he thinks the crack WTC 7 demolition team chose to plant a few “charges” in the southwest corner of the building...at the top.

In Jones’ presentations to live audiences, he actually uses the Southwark Towers (http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8) demolition video linked above, which shows huge, high-velocity jets of debris shooting out before the buildings collapse. WTC 7 looks nothing like that. What does Jones omit from that video? The audio, of course.

[Popeholden]

You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
–Inigo Montoya Roberts

interesting theory gravy...are you suggesting that ROUS brought down the towers? of course, you'd have to explain how they were secreted behind the walls of the towers and attached to the core columns beforehand without thousands of people noticing.

[Scientologist]

Gravy stop giving me such a raging clue.

[Horatius]

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4



Just to let you know, this link doesn't seem to work right for me.

[Gravy]

Just to let you know, this link doesn't seem to work right for me.
Thanks. Things change fast on the ol' internet. That link worked two days ago. I'll try to find another.

[Kent1]

Wanna bet? Here's the section of my paper that TS is referring to (pages 80-81, photos not shown here):


The video Loose Change quick-cuts between WTC 7 collapsing and a building being demolished. This building is the Beirut Hilton. Play the original video with your computer’s sound on and find out why the creators of Loose Change don’t want you to hear the audio: http://tinyurl.com/oufj3

Watch and listen to another demolition, Schuylkill Falls Towers: http://tinyurl.com/j8mdy
And another: Landmark Tower demolition http://tinyurl.com/fmf9e
And another: Southwark Towers, Philadelphia: http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8

In each case we hear the initiation charges, then the larger primary charges. Keep in mind that the buildings above underwent extensive structural weakening before their demolition. Absent such weakening, using explosives to bring down the WTC buildings would require charges of far greater magnitude. The use of such explosives would have been immediately apparent to everyone in the area, as well as to audiovisual and seismic recording equipment.

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.

Here’s an audio clip from a NYC news radio interview with a medical student who saw WTC 7 collapse and describes what it sounded like. http://tinyurl.com/q6xr4

What about those “explosive squibs” coming from WTC 7 on video?

Steven E. Jones, among others, promotes that idea, and it’s as silly as 9/11 conspiracy claims get.

I encourage everyone to read the whole page from which the Jones quote is taken. But don’t play “spot a false statement: drink a shot of Jack” – you will die. Jones’ “observations” and conclusions wouldn’t pass muster if they came from a junior-high school student. Note in particular his “experiment” in which he drops a block of concrete on another from a height of 12 feet and concludes that it’s “nonsense!” that concrete could pulverize when a billion-pound, quarter-mile high building crashes down! Can Jones, a physicist, possibly be that ignorant? Is he putting us on?

Here’s a still from the cropped, low-quality video that Jones wants us to see (http://tinyurl.com/7drxn)

Is there some reason that Steven Jones doesn’t want us to see a good quality video of this event, which is just as easy to find on the internet as a poor-quality video? Judge for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/qbvl6

There are a few things that Jones neglects to show us with his highly selective video:
– That absolutely no explosive blasts are coming out of the building as Jones claims.
– That the “squibs” somehow stick to the side of the building.
– That the “squibs” appear 10 seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse began.
– That a huge smoke cloud is coming from WTC 7’s south and east sides and blowing southeast.
– That windows and granite panels are cracking all over the building. Remember this quote from above: “As we were walking, we had to actually get a little closer to Seven. So we turned and looked at Seven, and that's when all the marble siding started popping off the side because it was starting to go down.” –Firefighter Thomas Donato
– That the entire roof of the building has already fallen due to loss of support from below – first the east penthouse, then the center, then the west, just prior to global collapse. So much for the floors not moving “relative to one another.”

I’d love to hear Jones explain why he thinks the crack WTC 7 demolition team chose to plant a few “charges” in the southwest corner of the building...at the top.

In Jones’ presentations to live audiences, he actually uses the Southwark Towers (http://tinyurl.com/qr2x8) demolition video linked above, which shows huge, high-velocity jets of debris shooting out before the buildings collapse. WTC 7 looks nothing like that. What does Jones omit from that video? The audio, of course.

Also check out where the location of the "squibs" are and the corner damage on WTC7
Scroll to the bottom photo comparision.
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

[Gravy]

Also check out where the location of the "squibs" are and the corner damage on WTC7
Scroll to the bottom photo comparision.
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
Frikkin-A, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't I check debunking 911.com?

Aargh! Thanks, Kent1!

TS1234, I hope you're paying attention. This isn't going well for your side.

[apathoid]

Frikkin-A, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't I check debunking 911.com?

Aargh! Thanks, Kent1!

TS1234, I hope you're paying attention. This isn't going well for your side.

If that was a squib(giggle), it must've been the longest single explosion in history, time wise. How do you explain that without rewriting phsics books, TS?

These are what squibs(giggle) look like......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&search=landmark%20tower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&search=landmark%20tower

[chipmunk stew]

Frikkin-A, why didn't I think of that? Why didn't I check debunking 911.com?

Aargh! Thanks, Kent1!

TS1234, I hope you're paying attention. This isn't going well for your side.
Wow! That's a conclusive demonstration.

debunking911 also has a great segment showing the building leaning to the south, near the bottom of this page:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[CurtC]

The point about the mass quantities of conventional explosives required is well taken, a good point. Not an impossible point to resolve, but a good point. Some have specualted about fusion technology, and cited high tritium levels. Others have speculated about "high energy devices" which are theoretically possible and which the military may or may not have developed. These more exotic explosives would solve the "mass quantities" problem.
So it sounds like you're acknowledging the problem, which is summarized as:

1. If the gravitational energy of the towers was to small, by a large factor, to cause the effects you see (your own assertion), then
2. The amount of explosives required to be much greater than the gravitational energy of the towers is the equivalent to one or two million pounds of C-4 per tower.

If you then acknowledge that a million pounds of C-4 in each tower is ludicrous, then the only known thing we have avalable are either nuclear bombs, or some science-fiction directed energy weapons, a la phasers or photon torpedoes of Star Trek. That's the corner you're painted into, there's no way of getting out of it without accepting that one of these three scenarios is possible:

1. A million pounds of C-4 per tower
2. Nuclear bombs
3. Fantasy weapons

That's it. Which of those three do you think has potential for being the correct explanation?

[twinstead]

1. A million pounds of C-4 per tower
2. Nuclear bombs
3. Fantasy weapons
That's it. Which of those three do you think has potential for being the correct explanation?

That's the problem with most CTs. They almost always give themselves an 'out' like that. If something is impossible on its face, then it simply must have been accomplished by secret weapons, secret black ops commandos, or even reverse-engineered alien technology.

I think I'll play troothydude's strawman game and declare that he thinks the 'demolitions' were caused by super secret reverse-engineered alien technology weapons placed by black op commandos.

[Hellbound]

That's the problem with most CTs. They almost always give themselves an 'out' like that. If something is impossible on its face, then it simply must have been accomplished by secret weapons, secret black ops commandos, or even reverse-engineered alien technology.

I think I'll play troothydude's strawman game and declare that he thinks the 'demolitions' were caused by super secret reverse-engineered alien technology weapons placed by black op commandos.

[Old Gamer Mode]
Magna-pack Explosives!
[/Old Gamer Mode]

[Horatius]

I think I'll play troothydude's strawman game and declare that he thinks the 'demolitions' were caused by super secret reverse-engineered alien technology weapons placed by black op commandos.

That should be, "placed by secret Black Op (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=060911) Elf Commandos (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=060815)"

[pgwenthold]

So it sounds like you're acknowledging the problem, which is summarized as:

1. If the gravitational energy of the towers was to small, by a large factor, to cause the effects you see (your own assertion), then


You should amend this to note they are effects that he CLAIMS occur

Of course, this nonsense about it all being pulverized into dust is just that

[Matthew Best]

I shall point out the falsehoods and irrelevancies of this today

This must be some new meaning of the word "today" of which I was previously unaware.

:rolleyes:

[Zygar]

This must be some new meaning of the word "today" of which I was previously unaware.

:rolleyes:

I'm not sure where you are, but for me his today still has over 7 hours.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath or anything.

[Peephole]

Wow! That's a conclusive demonstration.

debunking911 also has a great segment showing the building leaning to the south, near the bottom of this page:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

"Note the WTC columns laid out as if there were a path to the building. There are no concrete slabs attached to columns. This is yet another example of pancaking. With the floors pancaking straight down, the perimeter walls were free to lean over in tall sections before breaking off and coming down. That's what gave them distance."

Is this right? I thought the pancaking of the floors was rejected by the NIST?

[CurtC]

My understanding is that the pancaking explanation was rejected by NIST as the event responsible for collapse initiation. Instead, it was the sagging floor joists pulling the perimeter columns inward that initiated it.

Once it was initiated, the stuff avalanching down would likely have taken out the floors beneath the avalanche wave just before the perimeter walls got pushed out by the falling/tumbling debris. This is similar to a pancaking.

That's my impression, anyway. Note that this is about the Twin Towers, not WTC7.

[Peephole]

Once it was initiated, the stuff avalanching down would likely have taken out the floors beneath the avalanche wave just before the perimeter walls got pushed out by the falling/tumbling debris.

And who came up with this idea? NIST?

[R.Mackey]

Is this right? I thought the pancaking of the floors was rejected by the NIST?


Hi Peephole,

The "no pancaking" thing is just a difference in terms. I explained the actual NIST position in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1894560), hope it makes sense.

NIST is using precise language, too precise for most people. It'd be like me saying that an exploding gas tanker didn't detonate. Gasoline doesn't detonate, except under extremely rare circumstances; most of the time it deflagrates. But few people would understand the distinction without further explanation.

Sometimes scientists are too obscure for their own good. But on the other hand, the Troothers are so eager to pick up on any inconsistency, no matter how trivial or immediately retracted, that I appreciate NIST's attention to detail.

[Matthew Best]

I'm not sure where you are, but for me his today still has over 7 hours.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath or anything.

I'm using Greenwich Mean Time. Not sure where you are, but how many hours are left now?

[Peephole]

Hi Peephole,

The "no pancaking" thing is just a difference in terms. I explained the actual NIST position in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1894560), hope it makes sense.

NIST is using precise language, too precise for most people. It'd be like me saying that an exploding gas tanker didn't detonate. Gasoline doesn't detonate, except under extremely rare circumstances; most of the time it deflagrates. But few people would understand the distinction without further explanation.

Sometimes scientists are too obscure for their own good. But on the other hand, the Troothers are so eager to pick up on any inconsistency, no matter how trivial or immediately retracted, that I appreciate NIST's attention to detail.
I understand that what NIST is saying is that the collapse wasn't initiated by failing/pancaking floors but by the buckling of the exterior columns, leading to a progressive collapse.

But do they or someone else have any idea how this progressive collapse progressed?

Debunking 911 and CurtC seem to be saying that at least after the collapse initiation the building did sort of behave as in the pancake collapse theory (floors falling first, then the exterior columns failing).

[CurtC]

If you look at the structure of the towers, and how they might behave if an avalanche of concrete and steel comes down on them, the weakest points were the attachment of the floor trusses at each end. Also, the floors offered a huge horizontal surface area to the avalanche for it to crash into. It seems that the floor trusses would have failed first, followed quickly by the perimeter columns (which no longer had lateral support) getting swept outwards, followed by the failure of the core columns.

That's what seems like would happen based on the structure, and it sure looks like that's what happened in the videos.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.

[Gravy]

Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.We've done enough of your homework for you. Now you want us to repeat our efforts? Go away, you pathetic, lazy waste of time.

[Peephole]

If you look at the structure of the towers, and how they might behave if an avalanche of concrete and steel comes down on them, the weakest points were the attachment of the floor trusses at each end. Also, the floors offered a huge horizontal surface area to the avalanche for it to crash into. It seems that the floor trusses would have failed first, followed quickly by the perimeter columns (which no longer had lateral support) getting swept outwards, followed by the failure of the core columns.

That's what seems like would happen based on the structure, and it sure looks like that's what happened in the videos.
Okay, thanks for explaining.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.

I believe you were mistaken. This thread left off here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2005254#post2005254) for you.

[LashL]

Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.

No need to apologize for your absence. But go find the threads and photos yourself. Use the search function. People here have been doing all of your work for you since you first arrived. It's time for you to start doing your own.

[R.Mackey]

Sorry I've been so busy lately. I'll get back to all these lingering threads. Can anyone help me find the thread where we were playing "Hunt the Rubble". You guys sent me nice pictures of the rescue effort and "the meteorite". Can you please help me find those pictures again? Thanks.

What's the matter, TruthSeeker1234? Jealous of the other Deniers hogging the attention?

Scheduled your debate yet? Or are you still stalling?