PDA

View Full Version : Vertical Sharp Round Hole in WTC7


TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 10:00 AM
Well, well, well. Turns out, the OCTs were right about that 20 story hole in the south wall of WTC7 after all.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

Now we can see why they haven't released the pictures of it. There was evidently a cylindrical gash cut straight down through, that bears a striking resemblance to the cylindrical gashes cut straight down through WTC5.

Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?

GlennB
23rd March 2007, 10:06 AM
Well, well, well. Turns out, the OCTs were right about that 20 story hole in the south wall of WTC7 after all.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

Now we can see why they haven't released the pictures of it. There was evidently a cylindrical gash cut straight down through, that bears a striking resemblance to the cylindrical gashes cut straight down through WTC5.

Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?
Nano grinding-wheels.

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 10:06 AM
Well, well, well. Turns out, the OCTs were right about that 20 story hole in the south wall of WTC7 after all.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

Now we can see why they haven't released the pictures of it. There was evidently a cylindrical gash cut straight down through, that bears a striking resemblance to the cylindrical gashes cut straight down through WTC5.

Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?
Other than beam weapons? Hmm... Let's see:

the mighty hammer of Thor
the mighty drillpress of Bob
disruption of the quantum field
a tiny black hole
a tiny tornado
a train
a big-ass piece of debris from a collapsing buildingI'm guessing it's one of those.

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 10:07 AM
truth, i thought you said that you wouldn't post here ever again. Why are you such a liar

and you must have xray vision because I see nothing "round" about that hole.

uk_dave
23rd March 2007, 10:09 AM
Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?

Termites. Definately termites.

Or an asteroid impact.

Plus the termites.

Mancman
23rd March 2007, 10:09 AM
Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?

Falling debris.

End of thread?

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 10:09 AM
Now we can see why they haven't released the pictures of it.
The footage wasn't deliberately hidden by "them", genius.

Someone happened along this archival footage ON THE INTERNET and noticed that it had a rare view of the South side damage to the building.

edit: Note to self--draft memo to field ops reminding them not to place covered-up evidence ON THE FRAKKING INTERNET

Pardalis
23rd March 2007, 10:10 AM
You forgot inter-dimensional leprechauns. :rolleyes:

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 10:11 AM
and why do we have ANOTHER Thrad on this "hole"

there is still the 10 story hole thread
the other thread where TS was already talking about this hole on the rlease of this footage.

etc etc

why does ts always start a new thread on discussions from other threads?

Minadin
23rd March 2007, 10:11 AM
There was evidently a cylindrical gash


Cylindrical? What makes you think that? Just because that fits in with your pet theories of giant death ray star wars microwave laser beams from outer space? It HAS to be a cylinder for your theory to work, and there's absolutely no evidence for that. The evidence that it's even a gash is somewhat flimsy at the moment, I would say. I'm not yet sure what to make of it.

uk_dave
23rd March 2007, 10:12 AM
You forgot inter-dimensional leprechauns. :rolleyes:

No I didn't.

I just didn't mention them.

Didn't want people to think I was being silly.

Interdimensional Leprechaun Termites is just a step too far for some people.

Redtail
23rd March 2007, 10:16 AM
Ah HA! Beam weapons cut Sharp round vertical holes in all buildings with the numbers 7 and 5 but "dustify" (with fizzies) all building with 1 and 2! Diabolical!

tacodaemon
23rd March 2007, 10:18 AM
Ah HA! Beam weapons cut Sharp round vertical holes in all buildings with the numbers 7 and 5 but "dustify" (with fizzies) all building with 1 and 2! Diabolical!


Now now, the round holes weren't due to the beam weapons, they were due to the Keebler Elves using their giant cookie cutters.

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 10:20 AM
I'll just remind everyone what TS134's idea of "round holes" is, and allow you to make your own decisions on what he might think "cylindrical" means.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/949045525cbab5478.jpg


Is there a term like "colour blind" that applies to shapes?


ETA: And to steel? Because there's "no steel" in that photo, right?

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 10:27 AM
This "cylinder" appears to be parallel to the face of the building. We can also assume it's parallel to the beam that made it, right? So, by projecting that line outwards, can we determine exactly where the beam came from?

R.Mackey has pretty conclusively shown that such a beam could not be a space-based weapon, but from this "cylinder", it looks to me like it could not have come from anywhere else. So maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the beam that caused this bit of damage*.






*Ridiculous suggestion, I know, but we must consider all options!

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 10:27 AM
The evidence that it's even a gash is somewhat flimsy at the moment, I would say. I'm not yet sure what to make of it.
Really? I think the evidence is pretty damn convincing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77678).

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 10:27 AM
haaa haaa halaaaaaaaa haahaahahhahahahahahahahahhaa

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahaha

If you can not laugh for a moment at TS1234

Haaa hahhhaaaahaaaaa hahaha

Should I include the MP3 version, if it would make money we could release HAHAAA HAHAA on SACD or DVD audio.

Buy the "HAAAHAAA HAAA" DVD today so you laugh along with total idiots know as the nuts and dolts of 9/11 truth, as they uncover Beam Weapons, mini Nukes, and dustify steel all day.

19.95 shipping included.

Wait! news just in a photo from ground zero confirms what people saw cutting and knocking down the WTC complex!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244746040fec70f90.jpg
This transformer was finally stopped on 9/11 by a young kid with a small cricket pocket blaster. The kid shot the transformer as he was cutting a very large 20 story gash into WTC7. If the quick thinking kid had not shot the YellowJacketNeoConTransformer, firemen inspecting WTC7 would have been crushed by building parts. TOP SECRET NOFOR WINTEL

boloboffin
23rd March 2007, 10:37 AM
If we could harness the energy used by the truthers to move goalposts, we could build another pyramid.

RAMS
23rd March 2007, 10:39 AM
Well, well, well. Turns out, the OCTs were right about that 20 story hole in the south wall of WTC7 after all.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

Now we can see why they haven't released the pictures of it. There was evidently a cylindrical gash cut straight down through, that bears a striking resemblance to the cylindrical gashes cut straight down through WTC5.

Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?




Are you deft, of course 'Beam Weapons'. Gee, so simple.

Uh..............where are the beam weapons, btw, and who runs them?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ......

RAMS

WildCat
23rd March 2007, 10:39 AM
Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

You're getting better and better TS1234 - 8 laughing dogs! A new record!

Anti-sophist
23rd March 2007, 10:42 AM
Can someone explain what exactly makes a hole "sharp round"?

uk_dave
23rd March 2007, 10:42 AM
On this subject, Mr Avery asks.....


Dylan Avery:
When you take a gash out of a tree, does it explode into sawdust?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5996

Why do I now feel the urge to hum 'The Lumberjack Song'?

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 10:45 AM
This "cylinder" appears to be parallel to the face of the building. We can also assume it's parallel to the beam that made it, right? So, by projecting that line outwards, can we determine exactly where the beam came from?

R.Mackey has pretty conclusively shown that such a beam could not be a space-based weapon, but from this "cylinder", it looks to me like it could not have come from anywhere else. So maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the beam that caused this bit of damage*.






*Ridiculous suggestion, I know, but we must consider all options!
It was probably cleverly reflected off of a satellite mirror, so as to follow a perfect plumb line down to Ground Zero.

I just gave you an out, TS. Take it to Judy right away. She's waiting on the balcony. Go serenade her with this new idea. You can thank me later.

RAMS
23rd March 2007, 10:46 AM
Ya know, on second inspection with the HST from space, I looked more carefully at that opening photo from 'toothreeker' and behold, that whole photo is just crawling with billions of thermites. Tons of 'em. Pesky thermites. Who could have guessed.

RAMS

ihaunter
23rd March 2007, 10:50 AM
Falling debris.

End of thread?

You're quite the optimist.:)

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 10:51 AM
On this subject, Mr Avery asks.....



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5996

Why do I now feel the urge to hum 'The Lumberjack Song'?
Sweet! This is exactly the analogy Judy Wood employed just as she swerved precipitously off the deep end. Has Dylan reached the precipice of his own deep end?

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 10:52 AM
Wait! news just in a photo from ground zero confirms what people saw cutting and knocking down the WTC complex!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244746040fec70f90.jpg
This transformer was finally stopped on 9/11 by a young kid with a small cricket pocket blaster. The kid shot the transformer as he was cutting a very large 20 story gash into WTC7. If the quick thinking kid had not shot the YellowJacketNeoConTransformer, firemen inspecting WTC7 would have been crushed by building parts. TOP SECRET NOFOR WINTEL




Poor BumbleBee, the last thing he needs to be drawn into, is being blamed for 911. The AutoBots are already undermanned as it is.

RAMS
23rd March 2007, 10:57 AM
haaa haaa halaaaaaaaa haahaahahhahahahahahahahahhaa

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahaha

If you can not laugh for a moment at TS1234

Haaa hahhhaaaahaaaaa hahaha

Should I include the MP3 version, if it would make money we could release HAHAAA HAHAA on SACD or DVD audio.

Buy the "HAAAHAAA HAAA" DVD today so you laugh along with total idiots know as the nuts and dolts of 9/11 truth, as they uncover Beam Weapons, mini Nukes, and dustify steel all day.

19.95 shipping included.

Wait! news just in a photo from ground zero confirms what people saw cutting and knocking down the WTC complex!
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244746040fec70f90.jpg
This transformer was finally stopped on 9/11 by a young kid with a small cricket pocket blaster. The kid shot the transformer as he was cutting a very large 20 story gash into WTC7. If the quick thinking kid had not shot the YellowJacketNeoConTransformer, firemen inspecting WTC7 would have been crushed by building parts. TOP SECRET NOFOR WINTEL




Lord, I am in tears over the transformer.......

RAMS

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 11:05 AM
Footage is a copy of a copy of a copy by the looks of it. The compression is horrid.

Show me the original footage from the station, not some F&*King low rez barely viewable footage from google. You tried the same thing with your alleged "Nose Cone out the other side" crap.

Try again.

TAM:)

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 11:05 AM
The footage wasn't deliberately hidden by "them", genius.

Someone happened along this archival footage ON THE INTERNET and noticed that it had a rare view of the South side damage to the building.



NIST claims to have photographs of the south face showing the hole. The editors of Popular Mechanics claimed to have been shown them, in preperation for their book.

"They" certainly haven't let "us" look at those, and I think it's about time "they" do.

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 11:06 AM
NIST claims to have photographs of the south face showing the hole. The editors of Popular Mechanics claimed to have been shown them, in preperation for their book.

"They" certainly haven't let "us" look at those, and I think it's about time "they" do.

they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM:)

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 11:09 AM
Footage is a copy of a copy of a copy by the looks of it. The compression is horrid.

Show me the original footage from the station, not some F&*King low rez barely viewable footage from google. You tried the same thing with your alleged "Nose Cone out the other side" crap.



Here is a 640x480 video of the WTC7 hole.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CV4PU0IQ

I would love nothing better than to find the highest resolution copies of all the 9/11 TV footage. That would be up to the television stations. BBC "lost" all of theirs. Don't you agree that Fox, CNN, et al. should release hi res copies of everything? Or did they "lose" them?

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 11:12 AM
Here is a 640x480 video of the WTC7 hole.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CV4PU0IQ

I would love nothing better than to find the highest resolution copies of all the 9/11 TV footage. That would be up to the television stations. BBC "lost" all of theirs. Don't you agree that Fox, CNN, et al. should release hi res copies of everything? Or did they "lose" them?

Thanks for the link, but even 640x480 is low rez for this type of thing.

I feel that they do not owe anyone anything. They are private companies. They own the footage. Who do they have an "obligation" to provide this to?

TAM:)

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 11:15 AM
they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM:)

For starters, government documents and photographs are public domain.

But the real issue is the concept of "official organization". The whole problem is that the "official organization" DID 9/11. It is not reasonable to expect criminals to investigate themselves.

WildCat
23rd March 2007, 11:22 AM
Thanks for the link, but even 640x480 is low rez for this type of thing.
Hi-Def TV wasn't as prevalent back then, 640x480 might be all there is.

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 11:24 AM
This "cylinder" appears to be parallel to the face of the building. We can also assume it's parallel to the beam that made it, right? So, by projecting that line outwards, can we determine exactly where the beam came from?

R.Mackey has pretty conclusively shown that such a beam could not be a space-based weapon, but from this "cylinder", it looks to me like it could not have come from anywhere else. So maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the beam that caused this bit of damage*.


Mackey's objections mostly revolved around the weight of an orbiting power supply. We must consider the possibility that the power supply is earth based, and uses arrays of orbiting reflectors.

I am open to other explanations for the cylindrical 9/11 holes, and the other strange phenonmena. Falling rubble? How could falling rubble cut so cleanly?

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 11:26 AM
For starters, government documents and photographs are public domain.




I've seen people assert this before, but is it really true? Or is it true for some classes of documents, but not others?

How does this account for the existence of classified documents?

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 11:29 AM
Hi-Def TV wasn't as prevalent back then, 640x480 might be all there is.
It's certainly good enough to see that the gash really is a gash.

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 11:31 AM
It was probably cleverly reflected off of a satellite mirror, so as to follow a perfect plumb line down to Ground Zero.

I just gave you an out, TS. Take it to Judy right away. She's waiting on the balcony. Go serenade her with this new idea. You can thank me later.


Mackey's objections mostly revolved around the weight of an orbiting power supply. We must consider the possibility that the power supply is earth based, and uses arrays of orbiting reflectors.


Chipmunk Stew, Meet TruthSeeker1234. TruthSeeker1234, meet Chipmunk Stew. I'll just let you two fight it out, okay?




I am open to other explanations for the cylindrical 9/11 holes, and the other strange phenonmena. Falling rubble? How could falling rubble cut so cleanly?



No you aren't.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_949045525cbab5478.jpg ('http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2496')

tacodaemon
23rd March 2007, 11:31 AM
I've seen people assert this before, but is it really true? Or is it true for some classes of documents, but not others?

How does this account for the existence of classified documents?


What it means is that works of the U.S. government cannot be copyrighted, under U.S. copyright law. That doesn't mean there aren't other legal ways of preventing people from disseminating them, such as secret classifications and such.

Edit: also, the lack of copyright doesn't mean the government can't charge some kind of service fee for providing copies of the documents, such as the $13,600 or whatever it was that Christopher 7 was complaining he can't come up with. (One of the rationales for the government making more and more of its things available on the Internet is that it reduces the resources needed to disseminate them -- such as employee time, paper, ink, shipping costs, etc. -- which are the reason why there are service fees.)

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 11:42 AM
I am open to other explanations for the cylindrical 9/11 holes
No, you're not. This subforum is saturated with examples of your consideration of nothing but space beam weapons to explain the damage at Ground Zero.
Falling rubble? How could falling rubble cut so cleanly?
I'd like to ask you to do something, in all seriousness. Since this question has been answered for you in hundreds of ways, let's try something different:

Use your imagination and try to devise a way in which falling rubble could "cut cleanly". It may not be plausible to you, but be creative and come up with a way, no matter how ludicrous, that it could be done.

We often exercise our ability to understand where conspiracy theorists are coming from by coming up with the explanations we think they would come up with. We often come very close to hitting the mark. It can be a very useful exercise. Try it out--play "skeptic" and see what you come up with.

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 11:44 AM
Seems to me the perfect debris to cut such a slice would be a long piece of steel. Any long pieces of steel in the WTCs?

lol

TAM:)

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 11:46 AM
Chipmunk Stew, Meet TruthSeeker1234. TruthSeeker1234, meet Chipmunk Stew. I'll just let you two fight it out, okay?
Aw. Here I was, expecting some Troof cred for pushing the Movement forward. Instead, it turns out I'm behind the curve. :(

boloboffin
23rd March 2007, 11:52 AM
OMG, at DU, greyl just published an eye-popping composite image of this "new" picture of the gash along with the "Bay Area Muslims" picture of damage from the top down. I imagine he'll be along shortly to share, but wow.

It becomes clearer and clearer that the damage from WTC 1 perimeter columns essentially gutted WTC 7.

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 11:52 AM
Can someone explain what exactly makes a hole "sharp round"?
He meant "right round", like a record baby, Round round.

Yes TS1234 may be the flamboyant, androgynous Dead or Alive front man!

@ Dead or Alive.

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 11:56 AM
So this video/photo, to us in the sane business, proves the debris damage was enormous, and adds evidence to the effect of debris to damage of WTC7 and its ultimate collapse.

To the truthers, particularly ACE and the no-planers, it proves that a High Energy Beam weapon was used...because only such a weapon could cause such a clean cut.

So what is the solution to this differing of opinions?

TAM:)

Mr. Skinny
23rd March 2007, 11:56 AM
Can someone explain what exactly makes a hole "sharp round"?
Are you asking what device could make a "sharp round" hole, or how a person might define "sharp round"?

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 11:57 AM
Seems to me the perfect debris to cut such a slice would be a long piece of steel. Any long pieces of steel in the WTCs?

lol

TAM:)


Oh yea, the debris couldn't cause damage to other buildings:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5382/aftermath102dddk1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4827/aftermath102jsizedop4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8365/building5zn1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 11:59 AM
No, you're not. This subforum is saturated with examples of your consideration of nothing but space beam weapons to explain the damage at Ground Zero.

I'd like to ask you to do something, in all seriousness. Since this question has been answered for you in hundreds of ways, let's try something different:

Use your imagination and try to devise a way in which falling rubble could "cut cleanly". It may not be plausible to you, but be creative and come up with a way, no matter how ludicrous, that it could be done.

We often exercise our ability to understand where conspiracy theorists are coming from by coming up with the explanations we think they would come up with. We often come very close to hitting the mark. It can be a very useful exercise. Try it out--play "skeptic" and see what you come up with.

OK. Sharp, cylindrical holes could be carved by falling debris if the debris was spherical, extremely dense, and travelling very fast. We would expect to see one sphere at the bottom of each cylindrical hole.

Mr. Skinny
23rd March 2007, 12:02 PM
It was probably cleverly reflected off of a satellite mirror, so as to follow a perfect plumb line down to Ground Zero.

I just gave you an out, TS. Take it to Judy right away. She's waiting on the balcony. Go serenade her with this new idea. You can thank me later.
Unlikely, as the beam would "bloom" too much as it passed through the atmosphere on the way up. That would require some gawdawful big optics in space to try to refocus the beam, then you'd just bloom the beam again as it reentered the atmosphere.

I think a beam weapon in an aircraft using cloaking technology is more feasible.

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 12:04 PM
I think a larger version of one of the Tripod aliens from "War of the Worlds" could have created such a hole.

TAM:)

apathoid
23rd March 2007, 12:06 PM
Pardon my ignorance Ace, but how did you determine that the hole is cylindrical, as opposed to angular, or even irregular?

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 12:08 PM
OK. Sharp, cylindrical holes could be carved by falling debris if the debris was spherical, extremely dense, and travelling very fast. We would expect to see one sphere at the bottom of each cylindrical hole.
Hmm. I don't think you understand the spirit of the exercise.

I'll try to re-word it more carefully:

Use your imagination to devise a way, no matter how ludicrous it seems to you, that the debris from WTC1's collapse could "cut cleanly" and leave behind exactly what we observe, no more, no less, in the images from 9/11.

"It's impossible" is not an acceptable answer in this exercise.

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 12:12 PM
Unlikely, as the beam would "bloom" to much as it passed through the atmosphere on the way up. That would require some gawdawful big optics in space to try to refocus the beam, then you'd just bloom the beam again as it reentered the atmosphere.

I think a beam weapon in an aircraft using cloaking technology is more feasible.
But then you have the weight problem again.

Maybe the aircraft were used to reflect the beam? The reflectors could be cleverly designed to double as cloaking devices. That's probably what the white "orbs" are that you see in some of the footage. It's evidence of an imperfect cloak.

greyleonard
23rd March 2007, 12:12 PM
OMG, at DU, greyl just published an eye-popping composite image of this "new" picture of the gash along with the "Bay Area Muslims" picture of damage from the top down. I imagine he'll be along shortly to share, but wow.

It becomes clearer and clearer that the damage from WTC 1 perimeter columns essentially gutted WTC 7.

You rang? ;)


http://zinzang.com/du/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Minadin
23rd March 2007, 12:18 PM
Thanks, Greyleonard, that looks much clearer than the previous video images did.

It still looks to me like an awfully straight line going down the building near the center, whereas the other damage (like Arus posted) seemed a little bit more ragged, and that's mostly why I'm not sure what to think of it. The composite image seems to conform more to what I would expect debris damage to look like, but, that doesn't mean much, because I'm not an expert at what debris damage should look like.

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:25 PM
OK. Sharp, cylindrical holes could be carved by falling debris if the debris was spherical, extremely dense, and travelling very fast. We would expect to see one sphere at the bottom of each cylindrical hole.

Truthseeker1234, I am not a JREF skeptic. In fact I am on your side of the fence in terms of wanting a new investigation into 911. However, I am going to be less polite and more forthright than the Jrefers.

F**k Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.


Keep in mind your membership agreement requires you to be civil to other members. Don't personalize the debate by including personal insults.

Mr. Skinny
23rd March 2007, 12:25 PM
But then you have the weight problem again.

Maybe the aircraft were used to reflect the beam? The reflectors could be cleverly designed to double as cloaking devices. That's probably what the white "orbs" are that you see in some of the footage. It's evidence of an imperfect cloak.
I think we're on to something now. A ground based laser located in WTC 7 focused the beam off of a cloaked aircraft.

First, they destroyed the Twin Towers. Then, when the aircraft was directly overhead, they fired the beam at themselves in WTC 7, destroying all the evidence that the laser ever existed.

The diesel fuel was in WTC 7 in order to fuel the generators that powered the laser, and was later used to create the fires, thus making WTC 7 appear to collapse from fire (and structural damage from the collapsing tower).

Any flaws in that theory, chipmunk?

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd March 2007, 12:29 PM
Truthseeker1234, I am not a JREF skeptic. In fact I am on your side of the fence in terms of wanting a new investigation into 911. However, I am going to be less polite and more forthright than the Jrefers.

F**k Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.
Reported: "Personal attack against Truthseeker1234, circumventing profanity filter"

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:30 PM
Thanks, Greyleonard, that looks much clearer than the previous video images did.

It still looks to me like an awfully straight line going down the building near the center, whereas the other damage (like Arus posted) seemed a little bit more ragged, and that's mostly why I'm not sure what to think of it. The composite image seems to conform more to what I would expect debris damage to look like, but, that doesn't mean much, because I'm not an expert at what debris damage should look like.

I'm sure it is debris damage. It fits between 2 columns.

alexg
23rd March 2007, 12:32 PM
Other than beam weapons? Hmm... Let's see:

the mighty hammer of Thor
the mighty drillpress of Bob
disruption of the quantum field
a tiny black hole
a tiny tornado
a train
a big-ass piece of debris from a collapsing buildingI'm guessing it's one of those.

LOFL!!!

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:32 PM
Reported: "Personal attack against Truthseeker1234, circumventing profanity filter"

Why don't you report other peoples attacks against him?

Im ignoring you Arkan. You are boring with your bible of fallacies and tattle taleing.

That is pathetic.

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd March 2007, 12:34 PM
Why don't you report other peoples attacks against him?

Im ignoring you Arkan. You are boring with your bible of fallacies and tattle taleing.

That is pathetic.
Oh no. What ever shall I do now?

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:35 PM
If attacks I make are going to be reported by spiteful observers like that then I shall adopt the same policy of reporting. Childish but fair.

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:37 PM
Truthseeker1234, I am not a JREF skeptic. In fact I am on your side of the fence in terms of wanting a new investigation into 911. However, I am going to be less polite and more forthright than the Jrefers.

F**k Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.


Keep in mind your membership agreement requires you to be civil to other members. Don't personalize the debate by including personal insults.

I apologise Jmercer. I let emotion get the better of me. I shall make no more personal attacks.

I will make sure any such attacks by others are brought to your attention.

Everyone can thank Arkan for me seeing the light.

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd March 2007, 12:39 PM
I apologise Jmercer. I let emotion get the better of me. I shall make no more personal attacks.

I will make sure any such attacks by others are brought to your attention.

Everyone can thank Arkan for me seeing the light.
Everyone agreed to the same user membership agreement, and everyone has equal access to the "Report Post" button.

Why is it so many CFists have trouble grasping this concept?

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:42 PM
The motivation for that report was clearly a belief that he had somehow lost an argument earlier. He has stamped his foot. I now am well aware of the report button and will use it as it was intended.

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 12:43 PM
I think we're on to something now. A ground based laser located in WTC 7 focused the beam off of a cloaked aircraft.

First, they destroyed the Twin Towers. Then, when the aircraft was directly overhead, they fired the beam at themselves in WTC 7, destroying all the evidence that the laser ever existed.

The diesel fuel was in WTC 7 in order to fuel the generators that powered the laser, and was later used to create the fires, thus making WTC 7 appear to collapse from fire (and structural damage from the collapsing tower).

Any flaws in that theory, chipmunk?
It's brilliant! One flaw and a couple gaps, though. It wasn't a laser--it was some sort of beam that could be tuned to dustify steel or strip the paint off cars, whichever you need at the time. When the beam ignited the diesel fuel, it also triggered the thermite charges that pre-weakened the columns. The destructo-beam was located in the East penthouse, and to pull the building, the beam was set to reverse and evaporated the column holding it up, causing it to drop through the building and trigger a chain reaction on the thermite-weakened columns.

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 12:45 PM
If attacks I make are going to be reported by spiteful observers like that then I shall adopt the same policy of reporting. Childish but fair.
You absolutely should report personal attacks.

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 12:46 PM
The motivation for that report was clearly a belief that he had somehow lost an argument earlier. He has stamped his foot. I now am well aware of the report button and will use it as it was intended.
You can discern motive of other people over the internet? Cool! Can you teach me how to do that? Is there a school I have to go to? Special diet? Do I get to wear a special badge?

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 12:48 PM
The motivation for that report was clearly a belief that he had somehow lost an argument earlier. He has stamped his foot. I now am well aware of the report button and will use it as it was intended.What button do we use if you ever find a fact to support the 9/11 truth movement of lies?

Have you found some facts or just still passing on your high level of, "why not"?

TS1234 has special problems with understanding physics and seems to be in love with Judy Woods and her beam weapon. He is indicative of all 9/11 truthers, not able to think for himself.

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 12:50 PM
He meant "right round", like a record baby, Round round.

Yes TS1234 may be the flamboyant, androgynous Dead or Alive front man!

@ Dead or Alive.



I have to hurt you now.

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:52 PM
What button do we use if you ever find a fact to support the 9/11 truth movement of lies?

Have you found some facts or just still passing on your high level of, "why not"?

TS1234 has special problems with understanding physics and seems to be in love with Judy Woods and her beam weapon. He is indicative of all 9/11 truthers, not able to think for himself.

I have reported that personal attack on TS1234.

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 12:52 PM
Pardon my ignorance Ace, but how did you determine that the hole is cylindrical, as opposed to angular, or even irregular?



Oh, come on! It was way scientific!


He looked at it!

Cl1mh4224rd
23rd March 2007, 12:53 PM
Mackey's objections mostly revolved around the weight of an orbiting power supply. We must consider the possibility that the power supply is earth based, and uses arrays of orbiting reflectors.
Do you even realize how horribly inefficient that is?

Mr. Skinny
23rd March 2007, 12:54 PM
It's brilliant! One flaw and a couple gaps, though. It wasn't a laser--it was some sort of beam that could be tuned to dustify steel or strip the paint off cars, whichever you need at the time. When the beam ignited the diesel fuel, it also triggered the thermite charges that pre-weakened the columns. The destructo-beam was located in the East penthouse, and to pull the building, the beam was set to reverse and evaporated the column holding it up, causing it to drop through the building and trigger a chain reaction on the thermite-weakened columns.
Not sure if a laser could dustify steel, but they can definitely be used to strip paint off cars. The AF uses them to strip paint off of planes. The power level of a laser is easily adjusted, so that's no problem either.

The laser operator operates the device remotely and also initiates the thermite fuses just before firing the final down-shot onto the building penthouse.

Once I figure out how to dustify steel, we're golden baby!!!!

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 12:55 PM
Do you even realize how horribly inefficient that is?

Not just inefficient but totally unnecessary.

TS1234, why would they set up an array of reflecting space beam reflectors rather than just put bombs in there?

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 12:57 PM
Not just inefficient but totally unnecessary.

TS1234, why would they set up an array of reflecting space beam reflectors rather than just put bombs in there?
Because nothing says "Evil Genius" like orbiting space lasers, and inefficiency!

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 12:57 PM
F**k Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.


Keep in mind your membership agreement requires you to be civil to other members. Don't personalize the debate by including personal insults.

TS1234 has special problems with understanding physics and seems to be in love with Judy Woods and her beam weapon. He is indicative of all 9/11 truthers, not able to think for himself.

I have reported that personal attack on TS1234.


Oh, yeah, totally comparable, those two.

:jedi:

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 12:59 PM
I have reported that personal attack on TS1234.
It is a simple observation. Just as you appear to be acting like pdoh, a poster with many names. Like Docker, JessicaRabbit, et al.. And I say that because he, or they, had no real facts and are doing like you and I just posting about not much of anything.

Yet TS1234 does have problems with physics, and if you understood physics you could tell him what specific areas he is deficient in. A hint would be in the "amount of energy" required to run his beam weapon. There are beam weapons and the government has a beam weapon, it has even destroyed a missile. If you and TS1234 understood physics you could explain why that beam weapon would not work to do in the WTC.

I assume I am correct until you present some neat numbers to prove me wrong. But you could try to find some facts and stop with the "why not" stuff.

tonicblue
23rd March 2007, 01:08 PM
It is a simple observation. Just as you appear to be acting like pdoh, a poster with many names. Like Docker, JessicaRabbit, et al.. And I say that because he, or they, had no real facts and are doing like you and I just posting about not much of anything.

Yet TS1234 does have problems with physics, and if you understood physics you could tell him what specific areas he is deficient in. A hint would be in the "amount of energy" required to run his beam weapon. There are beam weapons and the government has a beam weapon, it has even destroyed a missile. If you and TS1234 understood physics you could explain why that beam weapon would not work to do in the WTC.

I assume I am correct until you present some neat numbers to prove me wrong. But you could try to find some facts and stop with the "why not" stuff.

I completely disagree with truthseeker, as you may have noticed by my attack on him. I also disagree with demolition theories.

If you continue to insinuate I am pdoh, I will report that aswell.

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 01:08 PM
I have to hurt you now.Sorry about that. I may have made a very shallow attempt at humor, or worse. Please let me know if my foot is to be place in my mouth.

I made the mistake of seeing the thread, I was sucked in by TS1234 opening statement only to find a loaded beam weapon lucking; stumbled on the sharp round error, and then this tune popped up, and there it was, like a record…

tonicblue does not realize how ironic it is for he to expose TS1234, yet both are not able to explain why, or "why not". ADDED for effect

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 01:27 PM
Sorry about that. I may have made a very shallow attempt at humor, or worse. Please let me know if my foot is to be place in my mouth.



Oh, definitely humourous, but now I've got that song in my head, going round. Like a record, almost, right rou......That's it, definitely hurting you now ;)




I made the mistake of seeing the thread, I was sucked in by TS1234 opening statement only to find a loaded beam weapon lucking; stumbled on the sharp round error, and then this tune popped up, and there it was, like a record…

tonicblue does not realize how ironic it is for he to expose TS1234, yet both are not able to explain why, or "why not". ADDED for effect


Ah, yes, twoofer infighting, it is sweet.....

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 01:27 PM
tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM:)

chipmunk stew
23rd March 2007, 01:35 PM
tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM:)
Let's face it: personal attacks are subjective (by definition). What one considers a personal attack another may consider a justified smack-down. It's every forum member's prerogative to report any post they feel in is violation of the membership agreement. It's then up to the mods to rule on the violation and decide on how to enforce it.

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 02:39 PM
they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM:)


HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 02:48 PM
Oh, definitely humourous, but now I've got that song in my head, going round. Like a record, almost, right rou......That's it, definitely hurting you now ;)

Ah, yes, twoofer infighting, it is sweet.....I owe you a beer. Next time/first time I am up there.

Yes it hurts seeing TS1234 with .... round, round, like a... dancing around with a beam weapon in his tutu

a few pitchers may not make up the difference

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 02:49 PM
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.
So, welcome? Maybe?
Any reason for all the nastiness, other than you can?
T.A.M. is a polite and patient poster. He doesn't mock or deride people in a rude manner. If you are polite and courteous with him, he will be the same with you.
Evidently, you don't like that. That's so sad.

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 02:50 PM
Truthseeker1234, I am not a JREF skeptic. In fact I am on your side of the fence in terms of wanting a new investigation into 911. However, I am going to be less polite and more forthright than the Jrefers.

F**k Off Truthtwister1234. You are an idiot who is playing a game that I dont even think you know the purpose of.


What we're doing IS the new investigation.

The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored. I can appreciate that the data on 9/11 is so strange, and so huge, that it is politically safer to do as Steven Jones does, and only consider a narrow range of data.

But politics is not science.

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 02:52 PM
The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored.

what crucial data?

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 02:52 PM
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.I think they have photos but they do not own the rights. Buy the rights see the photos. It is so very simple. I could be wrong, but then do you have the money to buy the rights to someones photos?

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 02:55 PM
What we're doing IS the new investigation.

The problem with the other investigations is that crucial data were ignored. I can appreciate that the data on 9/11 is so strange, and so huge, that it is politically safer to do as Steven Jones does, and only consider a narrow range of data.

But politics is not science.
Neither are feelings and imagination.
So, I've been meaning to ask you. Exactly how does this "dustification" happen? Do you have some mechanism for its occurance? Is it because someone dropped giant Fizzie tablets into the towers, or just how does this work? I'm really having trouble understanding how you deduced all this.

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 03:01 PM
what crucial data (were ignored in the 9/11 investigations)?

Gee, let's see.

NIST didn't study the behavior of the towers after "collapse" was "initiated".
NIST didn't study toasted cars.
NIST didn't study vertical round holes.
NIST didn't study the disappeareance of the south wing of WTC4.
NIST didn't study the hollowed out WTC6.
NIST didn't study the mushroom cloud.
NIST didn't study the spire.

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 03:05 PM
Neither are feelings and imagination.
So, I've been meaning to ask you. Exactly how does this "dustification" happen? Do you have some mechanism for its occurance? Is it because someone dropped giant Fizzie tablets into the towers, or just how does this work? I'm really having trouble understanding how you deduced all this.

We absolutely don't know how steel was dissociated into dust. That doesn't change the fact that it happened. We observe that it happened. We see the steel spire turn to dust. We see almost the whole tower turn to dust. When the events are over, there is way too little steel to account for the towers. Way too little.

Mince
23rd March 2007, 03:05 PM
If attacks I make are going to be reported by spiteful observers like that then I shall adopt the same policy of reporting. Childish but fair.



F**k off... You are an idiot...



That's a little extreme, don't you think?

Minadin
23rd March 2007, 03:10 PM
That's because their directive in studying the WTC collapses, as mandated by congress, was to analyze the buildings to discover the cause of the collapse, where the initial failure occured, in an effort to improve building safety and update codes if necessary.

The building industry isn't interested in arresting a collapse that has already begun, we're much more interested in preventing those types of events from ever occuring. Likewise, we're not so much interested in the collateral damage (toasted cars, holes in other buildings, etc) if we can just avoid the problem altogether. If there's no collapse there's no (well, very little) other damage.

I don't think that you really understand what the NIST was attempting to do with their investigation at all. They weren't trying to answer every little pereipheral item that anonymous ignorant laypeople on the internet think is "weird". That's why they didn't.

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 03:13 PM
Yes it hurts seeing TS1234 with .... round, round, like a... dancing around with a beam weapon in his tutu

a few pitchers may not make up the difference



Now that you've made me think of what's in his tutu, it'll take more than "a few" pitchers.......

Lucky for you, it's friday, and I've got a head starrt :)

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 03:15 PM
We absolutely don't know how steel was dissociated into dust. That doesn't change the fact that it happened. We observe that it happened. We see the steel spire turn to dust. We see almost the whole tower turn to dust. When the events are over, there is way too little steel to account for the towers. Way too little.
Way too little? Did you measure this yourself? How did you come to this conclusion? Really, I want to know. If it was from looking at pictures on the internet, why do you think that's reasonable? Do you think all the steel at the site would be visible? Why didn't the samples of the dust show high iron content, if it was all dustified?
You aren't bothered by the fact there is no way to do to steel beams what you claim, yet still insist it happened that way? Doesn't being told it's stupid by people who do this for a living even make you think twice?
Why do you think you are more qualified to make these decisions? Is a musician really who we need investigating what happened?

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 03:24 PM
So, welcome? Maybe?
Any reason for all the nastiness, other than you can?
T.A.M. is a polite and patient poster. He doesn't mock or deride people in a rude manner. If you are polite and courteous with him, he will be the same with you.
Evidently, you don't like that. That's so sad.


Thanks for the welcome, I am not here to slap fight, that wastes time.
HOWEVER, you say what? He is a polite and patient poster. This is what I've gathered by him in this thread:

Post 1. “Footage is a copy of a copy of a copy by the looks of it. The compression is horrid.

Show me the original footage from the station, not some F&*King low rez barely viewable footage from google. You tried the same thing with your alleged "Nose Cone out the other side" crap.

Try again.

TAM”



Post 2. “they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM”


Post 3. “Thanks for the link, but even 640x480 is low rez for this type of thing.

I feel that they do not owe anyone anything. They are private companies. They own the footage. Who do they have an "obligation" to provide this to?

TAM”

Post 4. “Seems to me the perfect debris to cut such a slice would be a long piece of steel. Any long pieces of steel in the WTCs?

lol

TAM”

Post 5. So this video/photo, to us in the sane business, proves the debris damage was enormous, and adds evidence to the effect of debris to damage of WTC7 and its ultimate collapse.

To the truthers, particularly ACE and the no-planers, it proves that a High Energy Beam weapon was used...because only such a weapon could cause such a clean cut.

So what is the solution to this differing of opinions?

TAM”


Post 6. I think a larger version of one of the Tripod aliens from "War of the Worlds" could have created such a hole.”

Post 7. I AGREE

tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM



Yeah, sounds like he is being polite and nice. Actually it sounds like he's being a condisending jitbag. But thats ok, I can be too. We all can.

Here's my main point, and then I most likely will not post again until I can ADD to a discussion.

Where is the: "yeah, it would be nice to see those NIST pics they aren't sharing, I wonder if they will shed any light on building seven's OBVIOUS bizarre collapse. Because ball busting or not, IT LOOKS LIKE Controlled Demolition. I'll repeat, IT LOOKS LIKE IT. Is it? I don't KNOW either. But even nice and polite TAM has to admit IT LOOKS LIKE ONE.

So if all you want to do is bash people for their views, I'm being given the impression that it must be ok to bash YOUR views (which are appearently to just laugh at any other view or idea thats not yours)(scrutiny is one thing). You bash mine, I'll bash yours. Thats what I seem to be seeing.

I'm not here to offend, just defend when it seems people are beating up someone instead of constructively debating or sharing or whatever it is people do here.

That's what I saw from this guy in THIS thread, I may be wrong.



Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 03:34 PM
Gee, let's see.

NIST didn't study the behavior of the towers after "collapse" was "initiated".

NISt was only tasked to find out what caused teh collapse. once collapse has happened, nothing is going to stop it.
so studying the behavior of "during collapse" and "after collapse" was irrelavant.
NIST didn't study toasted cars.
that wsn't their job. toasted car - burned by the fires from the burning debris that fell on it.

NIST didn't study vertical round holes.

what vertical round holes?

NIST didn't study the disappeareance of the south wing of WTC4.

disappearance? um it was destroyed due to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2

NIST didn't study the hollowed out WTC6.

didn't need to. and irrelavant to the collapse of wtc 1 and 2.


that wsn't a mushroom cloud.

[quoteNIST didn't study the spire. irrelevant. spire was only standing for a few moments after the collapse. which actually proves that no CD was involved.

WildCat
23rd March 2007, 03:35 PM
Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.
Yeah, proof of the conspiracy will come out any day now. The Decider will expose the truth if he has to surf every wave and bag every hot blonde (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2450980#post2450980) to find it!

What are you doing to find the TRUTH Kooger?

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 03:38 PM
Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.
You'll allow me to save face? I won't have to commit seppuku? I had my sword all sharpened and everything, too!

How gracious of you!

So, want to fill me in on this truth? Now that you'll let me live.

beachnut
23rd March 2007, 03:41 PM
Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.So what truth are you talking about? The beam weapon? The fact the truth movement is made up of lies?

What truth?

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 03:41 PM
We absolutely don't know how steel was dissociated into dust.

It wasn't

That doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Yes it doesn't. because steel didn't turn to dust.

We observe that it happened. We see the steel spire turn to dust.

no you saw tons of gypsum and drywall turn to "dust" or smaller particles. ncluding some pieces of concrete. no steel was turned to dust.

We see almost the whole tower turn to dust.

no towers were turned to dust.

If you consider these steel portions "dust" then the crap i take off of my tv and shelves at home must be microscopic:
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/9823/0030asizedsx0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/2903/aftermath102aapb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7153/aftermath102nsizedgx5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

tons more found here:
http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/gallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=Spazs-9-11-Albums


When the events are over, there is way too little steel to account for the towers. Way too little.
you consider 12 stories of steel and debris spread along a city block larger than disneyland "too little"?

chippy
23rd March 2007, 04:29 PM
Other than beam weapons, what explanation would there be for this?


Hahahaha what?

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 04:32 PM
So what truth are you talking about? The beam weapon? The fact the truth movement is made up of lies?

What truth?

I knew that comment would get reaction. I'll be brief then leave, you people offer me nothing but laughs at your ignorance.

1. You (collectively speaking) and I can be either right or wrong.
(thats to the extent that SOMETHING, other than the official story, happened on 9-11) Ray guns, reptiles, hand granades, holograms, who cares. My beliefs are not as wild as you would like them to be to fit your looney bin for all who don't fall in line with the Official "truth" perspective.

So, again, you and I are either right or wrong.

I believe you are wrong. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the "total" truth of that day will be known. But, enough should surface to embarress you.

If you are asking me to believe the towers were NOT blown up from SOMETHING other than planes, fire and gravity then you are all insane or ignorant or stupid or foolish or whatever word you want to plug in for aggressively dumb and easily fooled.


Now, you are going to ask me for my opinion and I will give it, just not right now. I'm working on it. But you folks are not the kind of people who would allow me a vague view of things. You like to rip people apart and change the subject from what they believe to things that are not relavent. I'm in no mood for your childish BS. I'm no dummy and will offer mature coversations with others I see fit. Not with a bunch of bullies that make no sense and just overwhelm anyone with a different view.

I will say it again, so ALL of you know. I will allow anyone on this board the right to change their mind, then change it again, and then again and then again as they see fit. And when the time comes for most of you to see what is really going on. I will reach out my hand in an offering of friendship and the opportunity for YOU ALL to save face.


I thought like you did until I let myself think for myself. You will come around, why, because I AM RIGHT. Good day to those who deserve it.

TruthSeeker1234
23rd March 2007, 04:34 PM
NISt was only tasked to find out what caused teh collapse. once collapse has happened, nothing is going to stop it.
so studying the behavior of "during collapse" and "after collapse" was irrelavant.

that wsn't their job. toasted car - burned by the fires from the burning debris that fell on it.



what vertical round holes?



disappearance? um it was destroyed due to the collapse of WTC 1 and 2



didn't need to. and irrelavant to the collapse of wtc 1 and 2.

that wsn't a mushroom cloud.

irrelevant. spire was only standing for a few moments after the collapse. which actually proves that no CD was involved.



DUH.

The question was: What crucial evidence was ignnored by the investigators?

NIST wasn't charged with investigating the destruction, the cars, the holes, the disappearances, etc. Thus, NIST wasn't charged with studying the crucial evidence. Therefore they ignored it.

Yes, you are absolutely correct, Arus. NIST was not charged with investigating this stuff. Let's all think about this for just a half minute. Arus and I will repeat: NIST was not charged with investigating this stuff.

Therefore, whomever "charged" NIST, had already assumed the conclusion, i.e. that the twin towers "collapsed". This would not be a safe assumption in any real scientific investigation.

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 04:52 PM
DUH.

The question was: What crucial evidence was ignnored by the investigators?

How about none?

NIST wasn't charged with investigating the destruction, the cars, the holes, the disappearances, etc. Thus, NIST wasn't charged with studying the crucial evidence. Therefore they ignored it.

what you listed wasn't crucial evidence

stateofgrace
23rd March 2007, 04:59 PM
I knew that comment would get reaction. I'll be brief then leave, you people offer me nothing but laughs at your ignorance.

1. You (collectively speaking) and I can be either right or wrong.
(thats to the extent that SOMETHING, other than the official story, happened on 9-11) Ray guns, reptiles, hand granades, holograms, who cares. My beliefs are not as wild as you would like them to be to fit your looney bin for all who don't fall in line with the Official "truth" perspective.

So, again, you and I are either right or wrong.

I believe you are wrong. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the "total" truth of that day will be known. But, enough should surface to embarress you.

If you are asking me to believe the towers were NOT blown up from SOMETHING other than planes, fire and gravity then you are all insane or ignorant or stupid or foolish or whatever word you want to plug in for aggressively dumb and easily fooled.


Now, you are going to ask me for my opinion and I will give it, just not right now. I'm working on it. But you folks are not the kind of people who would allow me a vague view of things. You like to rip people apart and change the subject from what they believe to things that are not relavent. I'm in no mood for your childish BS. I'm no dummy and will offer mature coversations with others I see fit. Not with a bunch of bullies that make no sense and just overwhelm anyone with a different view.

I will say it again, so ALL of you know. I will allow anyone on this board the right to change their mind, then change it again, and then again and then again as they see fit. And when the time comes for most of you to see what is really going on. I will reach out my hand in an offering of friendship and the opportunity for YOU ALL to save face.


I thought like you did until I let myself think for myself. You will come around, why, because I AM RIGHT. Good day to those who deserve it.

Just a summary please, what happened, in your opinion on 911?

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 05:09 PM
How about none?



what you listed wasn't crucial evidence


Your point is well taken, can you point me to the one's who WERE hired to do a FULL investigation.

Remember your point, NIST are NOT the investigators.
Fema report was wrong, inconclusive AND lacked real merit. You can't say THEY were the REAL investigators.
9-11 Commission Report wasn't really an investigation. Don't they even start the report off with this disclaimer:
Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to
provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to
identify lessons learned.(page xvi) So they weren't in charge of finding the guilty either.



Please stop dodging around things. WHO WAS responsible to invetigate the CRIME SCENE in order to determine the guilty and what ACTUALLY happened on the grounds in NY that day.

I don't want to get in the middle of you two, just stop playing games and help get to the bottom of things. BYE BYE.

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 05:10 PM
I knew that comment would get reaction. I'll be brief then leave, you people offer me nothing but laughs at your ignorance.

1. You (collectively speaking) and I can be either right or wrong.
(thats to the extent that SOMETHING, other than the official story, happened on 9-11) Ray guns, reptiles, hand granades, holograms, who cares. My beliefs are not as wild as you would like them to be to fit your looney bin for all who don't fall in line with the Official "truth" perspective.

So, again, you and I are either right or wrong.

I believe you are wrong. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the "total" truth of that day will be known. But, enough should surface to embarress you.

If you are asking me to believe the towers were NOT blown up from SOMETHING other than planes, fire and gravity then you are all insane or ignorant or stupid or foolish or whatever word you want to plug in for aggressively dumb and easily fooled.


Now, you are going to ask me for my opinion and I will give it, just not right now. I'm working on it. But you folks are not the kind of people who would allow me a vague view of things. You like to rip people apart and change the subject from what they believe to things that are not relavent. I'm in no mood for your childish BS. I'm no dummy and will offer mature coversations with others I see fit. Not with a bunch of bullies that make no sense and just overwhelm anyone with a different view.

I will say it again, so ALL of you know. I will allow anyone on this board the right to change their mind, then change it again, and then again and then again as they see fit. And when the time comes for most of you to see what is really going on. I will reach out my hand in an offering of friendship and the opportunity for YOU ALL to save face.


I thought like you did until I let myself think for myself. You will come around, why, because I AM RIGHT. Good day to those who deserve it.
So does this mean you won't let me in on what the truth is?

You are just so kind, allowing us the right to change our minds. Really.

Now if only you would get rid of the condescending attitude, we could maybe have a discussion.

But I have a feeling that's asking a bit much. After all, you're RIGHT!

Arus808
23rd March 2007, 05:13 PM
Your point is well taken, can you point me to the one's who WERE hired to do a FULL investigation.

what more needs to be done?
we know the buildings collapse. we know that two commercial airlines impacted them
we know that the collapse of WTC 1 is part of the reason why WTC 7 collapsed

what more needs to be done?

Remember your point, NIST are NOT the investigators.

THEY are. They investigated why the buildings fell, and are using those findings to make recommendations on FUTURE high rise projects.

Fema report was wrong, inconclusive AND lacked real merit. You can't say THEY were the REAL investigators.
FEMA went with a theory they came up with based on the evidence they found.

9-11 Commission Report wasn't really an investigation. Don't they even start the report off with this disclaimer:
Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to
provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to
identify lessons learned.(page xvi) So they weren't in charge of finding the guilty either.


an that's what it was. To make an account of why and how 9/11 happened. Their job wasn't to find out why the buildings collapsed


[quote]Please stop dodging around things. WHO WAS responsible to invetigate the CRIME SCENE in order to determine the guilty and what ACTUALLY happened on the grounds in NY that day. [/qutoe]

the FBI
the CIA
and NIST

they have done so.
and released their reports.

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 05:20 PM
JimBenArm

You seem nice. I would love to, at some point in the future, have a calm and enjoyable disscussion with you on anything going on in life(9-11, chicks, cars, etc). Maybe if we're lucky, it can be while having drinks in some island paradise. I'm not here to offend you, and forgive me if it seems that way. I usually do a GREAT job of letting someone know i'm being a d*ck head. In this case, i'm not. I just saw people ganging up on one dude, and wanted to interject a little. I can assure you we all have it in us to be pricks, I'll get my turn eventually.

Thanks for your thoughts. You do seem kind and fair.

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 05:34 PM
HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So you are saying "THEY" "HAVE" photos of this OBVIOUSLY very STRAIGHT cut in the building, BUT, don't have to and won't share.

HOWEVER!!!!, every other image they HAVE used in their reports(at least I think it's pictures and videos that I am witnessing in their reports) is "OK" to show and share. How do they draw the line? WHO chooses what images are "OK" to show the public and "NOT OK"?

So let's recap your point. They use images and video stills in their reports that are NOT theirs. And they supposedly have very clear images of building 7 that they have decided not to share, oh yeah, YET.


WOW, solid stuff. Keep up the great work. You're useless.

Hmmmmm...where to begin.

While I appreciate your desire to speak for me Koog, you shouldnt put words in my mouth. What I was indicating was that any footage, video or photo, is owned by those who shot it, and is theirs to release or not. Short of being a representative of an organization with the legal right to obtain forcibly, said video/photo, neither you, nor truthseeker, are entitled to any of it unless it has been made free to the public.

Thanks for the welcome, I am not here to slap fight, that wastes time.
HOWEVER, you say what? He is a polite and patient poster. This is what I've gathered by him in this thread:


I know you're not that stupid to have said you're not here to slap fight after the derogatory/inflammatory post you posted in response to my comments. Just be a man and admit you flamed me...I can take it.


Post 1. “Footage is a copy of a copy of a copy by the looks of it. The compression is horrid.

Show me the original footage from the station, not some F&*King low rez barely viewable footage from google. You tried the same thing with your alleged "Nose Cone out the other side" crap.

Try again.

TAM”



Post 2. “they havent let the bum down the street look at them either. In other words who the hell are "you" to have access to such things. Do you represent any official organization that should have access to such things?

TAM”


Post 3. “Thanks for the link, but even 640x480 is low rez for this type of thing.

I feel that they do not owe anyone anything. They are private companies. They own the footage. Who do they have an "obligation" to provide this to?

TAM”

Post 4. “Seems to me the perfect debris to cut such a slice would be a long piece of steel. Any long pieces of steel in the WTCs?

lol

TAM”

Post 5. So this video/photo, to us in the sane business, proves the debris damage was enormous, and adds evidence to the effect of debris to damage of WTC7 and its ultimate collapse.

To the truthers, particularly ACE and the no-planers, it proves that a High Energy Beam weapon was used...because only such a weapon could cause such a clean cut.

So what is the solution to this differing of opinions?

TAM”


Post 6. I think a larger version of one of the Tripod aliens from "War of the Worlds" could have created such a hole.”

Post 7. I AGREE

tonic:

1. I agree that sometimes, that some of us here let others "attacks" slide a little if they are made against a "truther". that doesnt make it right, but it happens.

2. If slackness in reporting occurs, it may in some cases be a matter of degree and the vitriol.

TAM


That is how you are suppose to quote someone here Koog. Try it the next time.


Yeah, sounds like he is being polite and nice. Actually it sounds like he's being a condisending jitbag. But thats ok, I can be too. We all can.

What is a jitbag? Would I like being one? Condisending...to someone like TS or you, absolutely...I do not disagree there.

I am torn here. Should I simply give you what you want, get angry, and throw some nasty insults at you? It would be instantly gratifying to me, but I prefer to let the pigs wallow in the mud by themselves. I think I will pass.


Here's my main point, and then I most likely will not post again until I can ADD to a discussion.

So I guess you won't be around anymore then.


Where is the: "yeah, it would be nice to see those NIST pics they aren't sharing, I wonder if they will shed any light on building seven's OBVIOUS bizarre collapse. Because ball busting or not, IT LOOKS LIKE Controlled Demolition. I'll repeat, IT LOOKS LIKE IT. Is it? I don't KNOW either. But even nice and polite TAM has to admit IT LOOKS LIKE ONE.

Been following my posts a bit eh? stalking me are we? Yes, to me, the collapse of WTC7, strictly looking at the video, has the visual appearance of a CD type collapse.


So if all you want to do is bash people for their views, I'm being given the impression that it must be ok to bash YOUR views (which are appearently to just laugh at any other view or idea thats not yours)(scrutiny is one thing). You bash mine, I'll bash yours. Thats what I seem to be seeing.

Have you seen the thread I created on being more civil to the newcomers. For you, given you have started the insult ball running on me personally, I will make an exception for. Anyone who wants to tear you a new proverbial A&SHOLE, may do so, I could care less about you or your feelings.


I'm not here to offend, just defend when it seems people are beating up someone instead of constructively debating or sharing or whatever it is people do here.

That's what I saw from this guy in THIS thread, I may be wrong.

Like most truthers you jump in the middle of something, not knowing the context. It is in keeping with the general movements MO.

TS is a chronic poster, insane, a no-planer, who almost every person in here will say is totally unreasonable, and out to lunch. I personally have no respect for him, as he has slandered me on more than one occasion, and slanders other people here all the time. TS gives as he gets, so you do not need to defend him.


Remember, when the truth is known, most of the other side will allow you all to save face.

The truth is known, and when the MSM are forced to deal with you and your ilk, and the general public are exposed to your crap on a larger level, you will not be able to save face. Those few friends you have that don't think you are loony toons, will know for sure then, that you are.

TAM:)

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 05:34 PM
Just a summary please, what happened, in your opinion on 911?


This is my last post in this thread. WHY, because it's titled BUILDING 7...

I have no problem with a summary of my views. I'll post that in about an hour and a half, when I get home, in a PM for you. In time, I will give you the honor of a thread for discussion purposes.


Having what seems to be a cocky attitude at times doesn't automatically mean I am not respectful or polite. Have a great Friday Night!!!

Cl1mh4224rd
23rd March 2007, 05:48 PM
NIST wasn't charged with investigating the destruction, the cars, the holes, the disappearances, etc. Thus, NIST wasn't charged with studying the crucial evidence. Therefore they ignored it.
How the hell would any of that help them determine how the towers failed more than studying the towers themselves?

That's like looking at a weather front drizzling rain over the ocean in an attempt to understand why it spawned numerous tornadoes a few days earlier. It's absolutely worthless.

The Kooger
23rd March 2007, 05:52 PM
Ok, one more.

TAM, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Dude, you could have just realized I might not have a clue about this guy and let it go, or PM'ed me with that info. I've seen what goes on here and I know it's slap fight after slap fight.

I'll save the whole reply to your post, but you're waaaayyy off the mark. I am right. And I'm already looney, you can't live in this world and not be.

MSM "forced to deal with me"? yeah right.

Let's agree to bash each other until we get to know the true other, doesn't matter to me. I will still have to get up in the morning, go to work, come home and pay my bills.

The towers were blown up. Bottom line. Don't care about anything else. They were blown up. You are wrong if you think they just fell. Put me down, call me names, whatever you want, you're wrong. And when the tides turn. Lets have a drink and laugh about it. Until then, we can duke it out all you want. I'll even let you think you won by pretending to feel bad or sad or worthless or insignificant or a bad speller. Whatever you like, your the Vet here, not me. Good day.

Cl1mh4224rd
23rd March 2007, 06:03 PM
Looks like TAM's got himself an anti-groupie...

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 06:05 PM
Ok, one more.

TAM, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Dude, you could have just realized I might not have a clue about this guy and let it go, or PM'ed me with that info. I've seen what goes on here and I know it's slap fight after slap fight.

I'll save the whole reply to your post, but you're waaaayyy off the mark. I am right. And I'm already looney, you can't live in this world and not be.

MSM "forced to deal with me"? yeah right.

Let's agree to bash each other until we get to know the true other, doesn't matter to me. I will still have to get up in the morning, go to work, come home and pay my bills.

The towers were blown up. Bottom line. Don't care about anything else. They were blown up. You are wrong if you think they just fell. Put me down, call me names, whatever you want, you're wrong. And when the tides turn. Lets have a drink and laugh about it. Until then, we can duke it out all you want. I'll even let you think you won by pretending to feel bad or sad or worthless or insignificant or a bad speller. Whatever you like, your the Vet here, not me. Good day.


You misunderstand. I didn't know you existed until you came in here bashing me. You jumped into the middle of something that had a history to it, which you did not know or care to know before you started "slap fighting". Your lack of caring for my opinion, I can assure you is equalled for my lack of caring for yours.

Believe what you want...it is a free country you live in...despite how the truthers whine it isnt.

Get up and go to work, pay your bills...I'll do the same.

I am simply puzzled if you care so little, why did you even bother posting at all... but oh well.

See you.

Oh, and I wouldnt have PMed you, as I think PMing strangers is rude.


TAM:)

T.A.M.
23rd March 2007, 06:06 PM
That makes 2. PDoh was one, so Kooger is my second...lol

TAM:)

Horatius
23rd March 2007, 06:19 PM
In time, I will give you the honor of a thread for discussion purposes.



Ooooo, a twoofer is going to honor us with a thread! I can't hardly wait!



I bet it'll be the bestest thread, ever!

Mince
23rd March 2007, 06:28 PM
The towers were blown up. Bottom line. Don't care about anything else. They were blown up. You are wrong if you think they just fell.


They neither blew up nor "just fell." They were not blown up. Bottom line. You are wrong if you think they were blown up.


Now where does that leave us?

Arkan_Wolfshade
23rd March 2007, 06:42 PM
You'll allow me to save face? I won't have to commit seppuku? I had my sword all sharpened and everything, too!

How gracious of you!

So, want to fill me in on this truth? Now that you'll let me live.
Can I be your kaishakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaishakunin)?

JimBenArm
23rd March 2007, 06:46 PM
Can I be your kaishakunin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaishakunin)?
I would be honored!
But now that The Kooger has allowed me to live, maybe I won't have to use your ser...

ConspiRaider
23rd March 2007, 07:31 PM
Ooooo, a twoofer is going to honor us with a thread! I can't hardly wait!

I bet it'll be the bestest thread, ever!
You know it and nobody will ever be able to best his bestest.

I think it'll go something like...

MAXWELL KOOGS
Now 99, when I was at Loose Control training we learned one thing: Would you believe you can never believe anyone about anything?

AGENT 99
But Max, the reports are in, everything is explained!

MAXWELL KOOGS
Hardly, 99. In fact the reports missed it by that much! Would you believe everyone in the WTCs came to work that day with thermite hidden in their shoe phones?

AGENT 99
How, Max?

MAXWELL KOOGS
I've already spoken to the Chief about it, 99. Would you believe that KAOS agents had infiltrated every single shoeshine stall in Manhattan the day before!

AGENT 99
But Max, all shoeshiners in New York City were on strike that day, don't you remember?

MAXWELL KOOGS
Uh, well yes 99. Would you believe KAOS put thermite mud on the WTC sidewalks and then took away the shoe-wiping mats? And then at the specified time...

AGENT 99
Yes but Max, FULL CONTROL agents have already determined that every tenant would have needed at least thirty pounds of thermite per shoe...

MAXWELL KOOGS
Don't interrupt me 99, and I'll kindly ask you not to do that ever again! Now as I was saying, it's obvious that no internal explosives of any kind were used in the collapses and in fact they were caused directly by the immediate and continuing damage done to the structures!

AGENT 99
Oh Max, you're so clever. Ooohhhhh, Max...