Why I despise the Truthers

[NYCEMT86]

Why would they want to get me banned? And so quickly? Are they already all out of their scary facts? Well now they really showed me huh? This is a real disappointment anyhow. They've shown me nothing so far. Trying to get me banned is just a copout.

yawn

We have showed you a lot of things. I have had to post the same thing over and over again because it seemed like you couldn't get a grasp of what I posted. You have gone outside of what I or others have said.

Getting you banned? No, I personally don't care. If you do get banned that is because of your behavior on this forum.

[Drudgewire]

We all know it's not nice for someone from that forum to call on murdering you Gravy. I've seen the transcripts & that "JackChit" charactor needs to be in a mental institution or in jail. You know you can get him for communication harassment? And Dylan needs to just quit telling his people where you are all the time. If something happens to you Gravy we'll make sure they go to jail for being accomplices to murder.

We're with ya all the way Gravy! :crowded:
I'm sure he's safe. Someone gets killed by a truther the movement dies... since the only defense any attorney would have would be insanity and it would require showing in a court of law how deluded you'd have to be to believe any of this garbage. :p

[PhantomWolf]

Why would they want to get me banned? And so quickly? Are they already all out of their scary facts? Well now they really showed me huh? This is a real disappointment anyhow. They've shown me nothing so far. Trying to get me banned is just a copout.

yawn

Unlike the LCF were you do get banned for simply disagreeing with Dylan and Co (this is provable when people known to be debunkers have been banned without even a chance to post) here you will never be banned for disagreement. Violating the rules by throwing about serious and repeated insults or abuse to other posters, swearing, posting inappropriate images, violating copyright, spamming and several other things set out in the rules will get you banned, but just disagreeing won't. Rev is scaremongering.

[ZENSMACK89]

Why don't you read the report and find out the answers. I'll give you a clue to the second, the first you can find on your own. How much fireproofing did the test have, and what was the test for?
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT

Is Wierzbicki wrong?

[Gravy]

Again you are claiming the planes did it on it's own.(That was a false statement)

This was a response to how the plane alone could cause the towers to fall down

If he could tell that just plane caused the towers to collapse

"[J]ust [the] plane [sic]" didn't cause the towers to collapse. You'll note that the towers remained standing for a considerable time following each of their hits.

A chain of events, taken together, caused each tower to fail.

Once again (for the third time, I believe) the "plane [sic] alone" did not "cause the towers to fall down."

Are you going to acknowledge your error and cease repeating it?

I'm sorry. Let me correct myself.
The plane compounded with the exploding soda from the drink cart caused to tower to fall along with some Jet Fuel that burned off mostly outside the building and then the rest about 10 minutes later.
Happy?

How can a plane do it on its own

You just did it AGAIN.

Okay, ZEN: tell us what NIST says most probably caused the towers to collapse. What were their conclusions? Prove that you know. Right now.

There is no proof that the plane, could and did knock the towers down on its own.

ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye.

Okay, I'll give you one last chance before you go on ignore. Because you have a problem with honesty, you have persisted in misstating the official reasons for the tower collapses. In fact, I do not think you are capable of stating those reasons in your own words. Prove me wrong, then do not misstate NIST's conclusions again.

Go ahead.

ZEN, I'm waiting for your answer.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2851663&postcount=474

One final time, ZEN. Are you mature enough to do this simple thing?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2851663&postcount=474

He wasn't

Every day I hope there won't be one worse than the last, but I'm always disappointed. That's enough Whack-A-Mole for me. Good luck with your denial, ZEN.

[NYCEMT86]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT

Is Wierzbicki wrong?


Copy and Paste? Thats it?


Why don't you read the actual NIST report instead of referring to 911research and tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT IT MEANS.

:popcorn1

[ZENSMACK89]

"ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye."

"according to NIST"

"according to NIST"

"according to NIST"

Goodbye.

LOL

[ZENSMACK89]

Copy and Paste? Thats it?


Why don't you read the actual NIST report instead of referring to 911research and tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHAT IT MEANS.

:popcorn1
Let me see the report you wrote.

Is he wrong? Answer it.

[Anti-sophist]

"ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye."

"according to NIST"

"according to NIST"

"according to NIST"

Goodbye.

LOL

He's asking you to summarize your understanding of the NIST report because, it seems clear, he believes you don't understand it.

Seems like a completely fair question, to me. No idea why you are giving such bizarre and evasive responses.

[ZENSMACK89]

(That was a false statement)

























He wasn't

Every day I hope there won't be one worse than the last, but I'm always disappointed. That's enough Whack-A-Mole for me. Good luck with your denial, ZEN.
cluck cluck cluck

[ZENSMACK89]

He's asking you to summarize your understanding of the NIST report because, it seems clear, he believes you don't understand it.

Seems like a completely fair question, to me. No idea why you are giving such bizarre and evasive responses.
He asked according to NIST not according to ZENSMACK89

[Anti-sophist]

He asked according to NIST not according to ZENSMACK89

Yes, because you repeatedly mischaracterized the NIST report. So he's asking you to state what the 'official story' actually is. You know, the one you disagree with?

This seems like a totally reasonably request, to me. If you don't even understand what the official story is, how can you possibly disagree with it? Maybe the reason you disagree with the 'official story' is precisely because you don't understand it?

[ZENSMACK89]

So quoting the NIST site according to NIST is bizarre?

And why would he ask according to me? I'm not the one who believes it.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yes, because you repeatedly mischaracterized the NIST report. So he's asking you to state what the 'official story' actually is. You know, the one you disagree with?

This seems like a totally reasonably request, to me. If you don't even understand what the official story is, how can you possibly disagree with it? Maybe the reason you disagree with the 'official story' is precisely because you don't understand it?
What is it I lied about? I said GT's believe the plane did it on it's own meaning the plane and no explosive devices. Is that not what GT's believe? How am I lying? Is it not the official version that the planes caused the towers to fall?

What...? The jet fuel and the impact of the plane aren't considered the plane?

I don't get it.

[Anti-sophist]

So quoting the NIST site according to NIST is bizarre?

I have no idea what this means.

The simple issue here is that you've repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of how NIST claims the towers collapsed. They, and now I, have asked you to clarify your view of NIST's theory, to ensure that you do, in fact, understand how and why NIST believes the towers collapsed.

This seems like a fair request and one that you apparently are unwilling to do.


And why would he ask according to me? I'm not the one who believes it.

We want to figure out if you understand the NIST report. When you say things that imply that you fundamentally do not understand the report, we don't jump to conclusion. We stop and we ask you to clarify.

[fuelair]

Almost all of these young "truther" teens think that they're somehow smarter than their counterparts who do not believe in these conjecture-based conspiracy theories. This makes them feel special...it's ok if they don't fit in with the "sheeple", they're just government shills. I believe this is the source of the elevated level of arrogance so present in their ignorance. Allowing their dearly-held theories to be "debunked" would eliminate their source of self-proclaimed supremacy, and make them just like everybody else.

Much like the child who deliberately ignores logic and reason to believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, 9/11 CTers refuse to accept evidence against their theories. This evidence isn't just attacking their theory, it's attacking their "supremacy". Expect to see a similar response from CTers faced with "debunking" as you'll see with a child told Santa Claus doesn't exist. You're not just showing them the truth, you're taking away something that's dear to them. For that, they will resist.

In other words, they are short-bussers.

[Anti-sophist]

What is it I lied about?

I have never said you lied.


I said GT's believe the plane did it on it's own meaning the plane and no explosive devices. Is that not what GT's believe? I have no idea what a 'GT' is but I'll assume it means us debunkers... To answer your question, no, that is not what we believe. It is categorically incorrect to say that the plane did it on its own. That is not what the NIST report says and claiming that is the 'official story' is incorrect.


What...? The jet fuel and the impact of the plane aren't considered the plane?
According to the NIST report, far more was involved then just the jet and jet fuel.

[leftysergeant]

So Lefty? Are you claiming the columns were mostly damaged by fire as opposed to the plane crash?Fire, impact of aircraft parts, the explosion of the jet fuel. More than one process was involved in just about every event.

Although most of the aircraft was, in each of the three attacks, reduced to shards, the main longitudinal spars in the fuselage, to which the seats and most conveniences are attached, probably acted like a pentetrator projectile, doing most of the damge to the cores. Certainly, the engines, being as massive as they are and, to some degree, gyro-stabilized for at least part of the time, would have had a great impact on anything, to include the cores, that they hit on the way through the building. These two elements are remarkably strong, compared to the rest of the structure of a typical aircraft.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Zen, here's the final NIST Report from 2005:

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Start reading it! :boxedin:

[PhantomWolf]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests

NIST says 2500 MJ of kinetic energy from plane that hit WTC1
Calculations show that all this energy was consumed in crushing aircraft and breaking columns and floors *
Shotgun tests found that 1 MJ per sq meter was needed to dislodge fireproofing
For the areas in question, intact floors and columns had 6000 sq meters of surface area
* Calculations by Tomasz Wierzbicki of MIT

Is Wierzbicki wrong?

Why do you assume that because NIST modelled an approximation of the impact by using a shot gun and a small amount of fireproofing as a test bed, that they believed that it was a 100% perfectly accurate simulation of what happened? This belief ranks right up along side the person on another board that came to the conclusion that since a program was tested by impacting a can of coke into a test structure of steel and concrete, that the testers though the coke can was a perfect model of a 767.

[NYCEMT86]

How can a plane do it on its own

Your claim that a plane on its own made the towers collapse

Which clearly shows your misunderstanding of the NIST report.

[CHF]

And why would he ask according to me? I'm not the one who believes it.

He's trying to find out if you understand the NIST report, Zen - not whether you support it.

Are you just avoiding the challenge or do you honestly not understand what is being asked?

If you don't know what the NIST report says then just say so.

It's OK for you to admit that you don't even know what it is you oppose, Zen. Trust me - you're not the only truther in that boat.

[Regnad Kcin]

Once again, ZENSMACK89:

Do you maintain that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers? Yes or no.

You are interested in the "truth," correct?

[ZENSMACK89]

Once again, ZENSMACK89:

Do you maintain that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers? Yes or no.

You are interested in the "truth," correct?
No I don't believe the official version.

[ZENSMACK89]

He's trying to find out if you understand the NIST report, Zen - not whether you support it.

Are you just avoiding the challenge or do you honestly not understand what is being asked?

If you don't know what the NIST report says then just say so.

It's OK for you to admit that you don't even know what it is you oppose, Zen. Trust me - you're not the only truther in that boat.
ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye.


Gravy re-qualified his question after I answered his first one in exactly NIST's words. If I don't understand it then how did I find the answer so fast? One of you even replied "sounds correct" or something to that effect.

It doesn’t even look like knew it was from NIST because he didn't claim that I copied it he claimed it was incorrect. When I showed him I got it right from the NIST site he threw a hissy fit and asked for it in my own words. He's a waste of time. I hope he keeps ignoring me.

[Anti-sophist]

No I don't believe the official version.

Sigh.

That is not the official version.

I am starting to believe this beyond misunderstanding and into deception, now.

[CHF]

No I don't believe the official version.

So after all that you answer is "No, I have no idea what the NIST report says. But I still know it's wrong."

Way to go, Zen.

[NYCEMT86]

No I don't believe the official version.

So you believe that the NIST report claims the planes alone brought down the towers?

[PhantomWolf]

He's trying to find out if you understand the NIST report, Zen - not whether you support it.

Just to clarify this even further. He's trying to figure out if you understand it enough to objectiviely disagree with it, or if you simply are disagreeing with it because it says the Governement didn't do it. Most Truthers only know the bits of the NIST report they have read on Anti-Government sites and are really good at parroting them. Understand them is a rather different matter, so he wants you to prove that you actually know what the NISDT says and what it means by saying it in your own words rather than linking to or copying and pasting it. It's exactly the same as a Proffessor at University does when he gets his class to read up on a topic and then write a 200 word essay on it. To do that you have to know what the topic is about, else you just end up mindlessly following the crowd. See this is the problem. While the CT crowd throw in the "close minded" and "Sheeple" titles at the drop of a hat, if I had a dollar for every time I have seen a CT unthinkingly just post a link to a CT site as an answer to a question, or give a bottled reply, ask a straight off a webpage qquestion, or just cut and paste huge amounts of text, I'd be a very, very, very, very, very rich man.

[CHF]

Zen, the NIST report does not say that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers.

Understand?

The NIST report does not say that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers.

Your belief that is does shows that you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

[ZENSMACK89]

So after all that you answer is "No, I have no idea what the NIST report says. But I still know it's wrong."

Way to go, Zen.
I not getting sucked into some semantic debate about if the plane and the things the plane supposedly caused are different causes. Give it up.

[Anti-sophist]

I not getting sucked into some semantic debate about if the plane and the things the plane supposedly caused are different causes. Give it up.

And we aren't going to get sucked into a conversation with someone who is intentionally using misleading language in an attempt to poison the well and invoke various other logical fallacies.

Either you can be intellectually honest, or you can't. If you can't have enough respect to adequately state other people's ideas as opposed to creating strawman to beat on, you likely fall on the latter half of that scale.

[PhantomWolf]

ZEN, I asked you to tell me why the towers collapsed, according to NIST, because I don't believe you're capable of stating the reasons. You replied with this:

Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

That is incorrect. I'm sorry to see that you are incapable of simple honesty. You have severely embarrassed yourself with the adults here. Goodbye.


Gravy re-qualified his question after I answered his first one in exactly NIST's words. If I don't understand it then how did I find the answer so fast? One of you even replied "sounds correct" or something to that effect.

It doesn’t even look like knew it was from NIST because he didn't claim that I copied it he claimed it was incorrect. When I showed him I got it right from the NIST site he threw a hissy fit and asked for it in my own words. He's a waste of time. I hope he keeps ignoring me.

read this very carefully. Gravy asked you to explain how the collapses occured. You posted why they said it wasn't a Controlled Demolition. He didn't ask you for that, how is it the answer to his question? If you asked me what colour the sky was, and I replied that Clouds are white because of the way light refracts through the water dropets, is that answering you question? No. And giving the reasons that NIST states that the collapse was not a CD is NOT, repeat, NOT explaining what NIST said WAS the cause of the collapse. How about you answer that question?

[PhantomWolf]

I not getting sucked into some semantic debate about if the plane and the things the plane supposedly caused are different causes. Give it up.

No one is trying to sucker you into anything, we just are trying to find out if you actually know and understand what you disagree with or if you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If you don't know the answer, just say so, at least we know where you stand and what to do to try and educate you, as long as you play this stupid game, all you are doing is trolling and making us guess at how ignorant you really are. Ignorance is an acceptable and changable condition, we're all ignorant about something and can learn to fix it. Willful ignorance is not. Which catogory do you fall into ZENSMACK?

[ZENSMACK89]

I know what he's doing. I know what you're all doing. How do you all assume to know or to have read more then anyone else? Bare assertions on everything from what I understand to how old I am. You’re all full of it. Bare assertions and hand waving is all any of you have because you support an official version which is nothing more then just that. None of you have shown anything so how do I know you read it or understand it? Understand what? Understand its bull? I don't even care I especially don't want to here it in your own words. Who the heck are you? Point to where it proves it. Quote it. Copy it. Plagiarize it where it proves it. Can you? I'm not walking in here like I need to prove anything to any of you. You got it backwards.

[CHF]

Back in April, Mark described Zen perfectly in a thread called What are your favorite arguments that never fail to stump the twoofers? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79989)

Some questions that never fail to stump the deniers:

What does NIST say caused the towers to collapse?

[ZENSMACK89]

No one is trying to sucker you into anything, we just are trying to find out if you actually know and understand what you disagree with or if you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing. If you don't know the answer, just say so, at least we know where you stand and what to do to try and educate you, as long as you play this stupid game, all you are doing is trolling and making us guess at how ignorant you really are. Ignorance is an acceptable and changable condition, we're all ignorant about something and can learn to fix it. Willful ignorance is not. Which catogory do you fall into ZENSMACK?
"the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC"

Did NIST have a theory at the end of their report for collapse or collapse initiation?

Did you read it?

[PhantomWolf]

I know what he's doing. I know what you're all doing. How do you all assume to know or to have read more then anyone else? Bare assertions on everything from what I understand to how old I am. You’re all full of it. Bare assertions and hand waving is all any of you have because you support an official version which is nothing more then just that. None of you have shown anything so how do I know you read it or understand it? Understand what? Understand its bull? I don't even care I especially don't want to here it in your own words. Who the heck are you? Point to where it proves it. Quote it. Copy it. Plagiarize it where it proves it. Can you? I'm not walking in here like I need to prove anything to any of you. You got it backwards.

You came here, to a discussion board, if you want a discussion then it's up to you to prove that we're going to be talking about the same thing. If you can't show that you actually know what the NIST claims are, but you just call them bull, why should we accept that you know what you're talking about? If we came to your playground then it's fair enough that we'd have to show that we were able to understand what you have there, but here the rules are stupport your arguments. Just claiming that something is bull isn't going to fly. Now you have three choices. Show you know the subject, talk to yourself because we're all sick of your evasiness, dodging and trolling, or go back where you came from where you can expound your nonsense to your heart's content.

[PhantomWolf]

"the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC"

That is where it happened

Did NIST have a theory at the end of their report for collapse or collapse initiation?

It's in the report, remarkabling near the front as well as other places. That's generally how a report works.

Did you read it?

I've ready about 60% and skimmed another 15-20% of it. There are a numberof people here that have ready 100%. How much have you read?

[ZENSMACK89]

What's the name of this thread?

Did you read that?

[kookbreaker]

I know what he's doing. I know what you're all doing. How do you all assume to know or to have read more then anyone else? Bare assertions on everything from what I understand to how old I am. You’re all full of it. Bare assertions and hand waving is all any of you have because you support an official version which is nothing more then just that. None of you have shown anything so how do I know you read it or understand it? Understand what? Understand its bull? I don't even care I especially don't want to here it in your own words. Who the heck are you? Point to where it proves it. Quote it. Copy it. Plagiarize it where it proves it. Can you? I'm not walking in here like I need to prove anything to any of you. You got it backwards.

The lyrics to a certain song by The Kinks comes to mind with this post.

[Anti-sophist]

How do you all assume to know or to have read more then anyone else?

This is an easy question to answer. Because we can instantly recognize someone who very obviously doesn't understand the NIST theory that he claims he disagrees with.

That's why we keep telling you to read it. It's -obvious- you don't know what it says. Therefore it's -obvious- that we have read "more" about it than you have. Similarly, it's -obvious- that your objections to it are fundamentally flawed on the grounds that you are objecting to something you don't understand.

[NYCEMT86]

What's the name of this thread?

Did you read that?

Seeing how I created this thread, Yes.

Did you read the original post and the first few pages before this thread went off subject?

[PhantomWolf]

Seeing how I created this thread, Yes.

Did you read the original post and the first few pages before this thread went off subject?

I'd also point out that while NYCEMT86 now has 157 posts to his name, that OP of this thread was his first on the board, thus it was done at a time when he was not a regular here. To suggest that this thread is a reflection on the board because a newbie created a thread with his first post that might have an inappropriate title but one that declared his frustrations, is beyond credulous and somewhere near sublimely ridiculous.

[PhantomWolf]

BTW, instead of changing the subject, again, hold about just answering the question, or is "I don't know" not in your vocabulary?

[NYCEMT86]

I'd also point out that while NYCEMT86 now has 157 posts to his name, that OP of this thread was his first on the board, thus it was done at a time when he was not a regular here. To suggest that this thread is a reflection on the board because a newbie created a thread with his first post that might have an inappropriate title but one that declared his frustrations, is beyond credulous and somewhere near sublimely ridiculous.

I did post a few other thread, but this is actually my first thread that has taken off to 14 pages.



Edited: Corrections

[ZENSMACK89]

I've read it. Parts of it more then once. I also look to the outside experts and what they think of it and how they agree independently from each other in what’s right with it and what’s wrong. While they all seem to have different ideas about NIST, FEMA, or even the 9-11 commission there are the flaws that they all seem to independently find. To me that’s the key. Independent research that forms a consensus. Not a bunch of people working together backwards towards the same predetermined conclusion.

What good is it? When there are people who feel the Gov was at least negligent in what happened on 9-11 and feel there is an interest in covering up that negligence then what good is a Gov report on it? Controlled and censored Gov reports.

It’s like if the Germans won WWII and they had Hitler and the Nazi’s investigate the Holocaust. I’m sure they could have presented what they would have claimed was proof and evidence that it never happened and it would have been good enough of an explanation for most Germans.

BTW

The NIST theory claims the force of the planes damaged or destroyed columns and sheered off fireproofing. Jet fuel though burning up in 10 to 20 minutes ignited building contents and weakened the steel that the fire proofing was sheered off of. The sheered off fire-proofing also allowed the fires to spread. Some have claimed the asbestos fireproofing that was in the lower floors of WTC1 would have done a better job. This all led to sagging which pulled inward thus according to NIST caused collapse initiation. This theory though different from the FEMA findings which blamed the fire more then the structural damage in my opinion is more in line with the original Bazant findings as stated in “Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?”

I don’t believe any of it because although the planes and the structural damage were severe I don’t feel the collapse itself or the way the collapse occurred is sufficiently explained by any of this. To me it’s always been a contradiction to say that the buildings fell mostly just outside their footprint pretty evenly over all four sides causing enough damage to say WTC7 to cause it to collapse also, but then also claim a kind of sustained conservation of momentum type collapse building kinetic energy, mass, and velocity down the center to come down at the speed it was witnessed to. The collapse of the WTC though many things was not a newly discovered source of energy. In other words it’s my opinion it should have stopped somewhere on the way down considering the loss of mass over the sides. That is if it should have started at all.

[ZENSMACK89]

This is an easy question to answer. Because we can instantly recognize someone who very obviously doesn't understand the NIST theory that he claims he disagrees with.

That's why we keep telling you to read it. It's -obvious- you don't know what it says. Therefore it's -obvious- that we have read "more" about it than you have. Similarly, it's -obvious- that your objections to it are fundamentally flawed on the grounds that you are objecting to something you don't understand.
Yup it's all obvious to you. How old I am. What I've read and what I haven't. How the official version is the truth.

It must be nice for everything to be so obvious.

[ZENSMACK89]

Why do you assume that because NIST modelled an approximation of the impact by using a shot gun and a small amount of fireproofing as a test bed, that they believed that it was a 100% perfectly accurate simulation of what happened? This belief ranks right up along side the person on another board that came to the conclusion that since a program was tested by impacting a can of coke into a test structure of steel and concrete, that the testers though the coke can was a perfect model of a 767.
Why do I assume this? I don't. But NIST is practically basing their entire collapse initiation on the fireproofing initially being dislodged. Doesn't it have to be calculated pretty close? Could their theory of collapse initiation work without this fireproofing dislodged? How little of it could be removed and still have this theory work?

[Corsair 115]

It’s like if the Germans won WWII and they had Hitler and the Nazi’s investigate the Holocaust.The only problem with that analogy is that once Germany invaded Russia, they had virtually no chance of winning the war. Invading a country with as many as 35 million men of military age is not a good idea.

I know, not exactly germane to your point, but it's that I can't resist having the occasional WWII-themed discussion.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I don’t believe any of it because although the planes and the structural damage were severe I don’t feel the collapse itself or the way the collapse occurred is sufficiently explained by any of this. To me it’s always been a contradiction to say that the buildings fell mostly just outside their footprint pretty evenly over all four sides causing enough damage to say WTC7 to cause it to collapse also, but then also claim a kind of sustained conservation of momentum type collapse building kinetic energy, mass, and velocity down the center to come down at the speed it was witnessed to. The collapse of the WTC though many things was not a newly discovered source of energy. In other words it’s my opinion it should have stopped somewhere on the way down considering the loss of mass over the sides. That is if it should have started at all.

So you are really saying that you don't understand how the buildings collapsed and you feel they should have behaved differently. And because of this you assume that thousands of specialists must be wrong, and demand that the whole thing be researched once more?

Hans

[CHF]

So you are really saying that you don't understand how the buildings collapsed and you feel they should have behaved differently. And because of this you assume that thousands of specialists must be wrong, and demand that the whole thing be researched once more?

Yeah. Only with the right conclusion this time!

[ZENSMACK89]

So you are really saying that you don't understand how the buildings collapsed and you feel they should have behaved differently. And because of this you assume that thousands of specialists must be wrong, and demand that the whole thing be researched once more?

Hans
No I'm saying I don't believe it. Read it again slower.

[johnny karate]

What is your basis for this disbelief?

[ZENSMACK89]

What is your basis for this disbelief?
For one they don't show it. NIST that is. Just collapse initiation not the collapse itself.

[ZENSMACK89]

Yeah. Only with the right conclusion this time!
That would be nice.

lol

[johnny karate]

So what is it exactly that you don't believe?

[ZENSMACK89]

So what is it exactly that you don't believe?
Seeing is believing.

[johnny karate]

You didn't answer the question.

What is it exactly that you don't believe?

[ZENSMACK89]

You didn't answer the question.

What is it exactly that you don't believe?
I already said that. I don't believe a dynamic mass falling over the sides enough to destroy other buildings could leave enough of a dynamic mass to fall down the center pulverizing floors in mid air all the way down at the speed that it did.

[ZENSMACK89]

I meant staic mass down the center

[ZENSMACK89]

Static

Third times the charm

lol

[johnny karate]

I already said that. I don't believe a dynamic mass falling over the sides enough to destroy other buildings could leave enough of a dynamic mass to fall down the center pulverizing floors in mid air all the way down at the speed that it did.


Why not?

Just to clarify, I'm not being glib. I'm seriously asking. And the reason is because as someone completely ignorant in the fields of advanced science and mathematics, it seems to me that a phenomenon such as this is not open to opinion. I would posit that there are hard numbers behind it that provide an irrefutable answer one way or the other.

You have taken a position, based on what I can tell, merely on unqualified opinion. If I am wrong, then please enlighten me with the calculations you have done to support your conclusion and I'm sure some of our more qualified forum members will proof them for the benefit of us uneducated folk.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

When thousands of tons of steel is in motion it's going to just keep going til it hits something solid to stop it. Since the WTC's were "tubes within tubes" & basically "hollow" there was just some resistence to the structure. But that little bit of resistence helped make the collaspe go on for about 20 seconds.

[PhantomWolf]

I've read it. Parts of it more then once.

Well that's probably more than 90% of the truth movement has.

I also look to the outside experts and what they think of it and how they agree independently from each other in what’s right with it and what’s wrong.

Useful, if you make sure that those you are holding up as experts are actually experts.

While they all seem to have different ideas about NIST, FEMA, or even the 9-11 commission there are the flaws that they all seem to independently find. To me that’s the key. Independent research that forms a consensus. Not a bunch of people working together backwards towards the same predetermined conclusion.

It again depends on who you mean when you say experts. I can tell you right now that the leaders of the so called truth movement are far from independant of each other and far from being experts in the required fields.

What good is it? When there are people who feel the Gov was at least negligent in what happened on 9-11 and feel there is an interest in covering up that negligence then what good is a Gov report on it? Controlled and censored Gov reports.

Well it depends on if we're talking negligence/incompetence or if we're talking hiding explosives in the towers and blowing them up. If it's the former, then a report about how the towers came down isn't going to be affected, no matter how negligent or incompetent the Governemt was, it wouldn't affect how the towers came down. If you're going after the second, then first you need to show some evidence that it occured, you can't just write off a report because the Government might be trying to cover something unproven up.

It’s like if the Germans won WWII and they had Hitler and the Nazi’s investigate the Holocaust. I’m sure they could have presented what they would have claimed was proof and evidence that it never happened and it would have been good enough of an explanation for most Germans.

But what about most non-Germans? Take look at the debunkers on this board. 50% of us are non-Americans, so there is no sense of loyalty to the US Government there. We look at the reports, weigh up the evidence presented and have come to the conclusion that the Offical claim is currently the best theory out there, that it might not be 100% correct and on occasions it does have to make assumptions, but that those assumptions are logical considering the situation, and are smaller than the assumptions required by the competing theories. We also don't judge the events of 9/11 in a vaccum. We realise that 9/11 is linked to numerous other events and learn about them too. The CT mindset requires an ever increasing Conspriacy that infects the entire planet, manipulating all of science and politics, pulling the strings to make everything happen to some strangely irrational script. Otherwise it falls apart. The offical claims don't need that at all, it just needs a bunch of extremists that are willing to kill themselves to make a point, and that is something we can easily prove exists, unlike the neferious shadowy web that the CT world requires for their reality.

The NIST theory claims the force of the planes damaged or destroyed columns and sheered off fireproofing. Jet fuel though burning up in 10 to 20 minutes ignited building contents and weakened the steel that the fire proofing was sheered off of. The sheered off fire-proofing also allowed the fires to spread. Some have claimed the asbestos fireproofing that was in the lower floors of WTC1 would have done a better job. This all led to sagging which pulled inward thus according to NIST caused collapse initiation. This theory though different from the FEMA findings which blamed the fire more then the structural damage in my opinion is more in line with the original Bazant findings as stated in “Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?”

That's probably the best I have seen from a CT, so you do get bonus points for that. Things I'd note is that 10 minutes is well and truely enough time to start the office contents on fire, 1 minute would have done it, likely less. Also the Office contents burned hotter then the jet fuel, they have more energy in them that can be released and it was that fire that weakened the steel, not the jet fuel fire. It is different to FEMA and Bazant's intial papers, however at the same time, Bazant published his paper within about a month of the collapse, and FEMA didn't do a structional analysis on the building, whivch is why there were calls for a better investigation, and NIST was charged with doing that report. The fact they disagreed with FEMA is to me evidence that they didn't just "toe the party line." If they had, they would have just rubber stamped FEMA's claim that the floors started to collapse and thus started a pancaking effect, instead they determined that this wasn't true, and come to the conclusion that it was the exterior columns that gave way, not the floor.

I don’t believe any of it because although the planes and the structural damage were severe I don’t feel the collapse itself or the way the collapse occurred is sufficiently explained by any of this.

What don't you think has been explained sufficently? And do you treat the alternatives to the same level of proof? If you problem is that you are unsure of the claim that much of fire proofing was removed in the impact, do you treat the claims that the concrete was totally pulverised in exactly the same manner? If you aren't sure about the claims that the fires weren't hot enough, do you feel the same way about claims that three entire office buildings could be wired with explosives without a single person noticing?

Do you agree that the floor trusses sagged? Have you seen the pictures showing that they did? Do you agree that the columns bowed inwards? Have you seen the pictures showing them bowing it, and the video that shows them giving way?

To me it’s always been a contradiction to say that the buildings fell mostly just outside their footprint pretty evenly over all four sides causing enough damage to say WTC7 to cause it to collapse also, but then also claim a kind of sustained conservation of momentum type collapse building kinetic energy, mass, and velocity down the center to come down at the speed it was witnessed to. The collapse of the WTC though many things was not a newly discovered source of energy. In other words it’s my opinion it should have stopped somewhere on the way down considering the loss of mass over the sides. That is if it should have started at all.

Well let's look at this shall we. Most of the material that was located about the outside, including the huge chunk that slammed into WTC 7 (there are photos of the debris hitting 7) were from the exterior of the buildings. Once the collapse had initiated, the floors, including the trusses and much of the concrete just pancaked one on top of the other and fell directly down onto the floor below. Is this not enough mass to carry on the collaspe? Most of the dust was comprised of the drywall and glass from the ceiling tiles and windows, so while concrete was certainly crushed and part of it, much of the concrete ended up in the middle of the pile packed so tightly together that one of the FRs noted that they could count at least 20 floors packed togther in just 8 feet of debris. All of that mass was falling down onto the building below, and worse than that, onto the floor trusses of the building below, trusses that were never designed or able to handle those forces. The falling floors from above were colliding into the next one with forces an order of magnitude greater then they could survive. How could they possible have slowed it down, or stopped it, we're talking tens or thousands of tons travelling at speed slamming into a truss that spans sixty feet between its ends, and is only being held up by a few bolts at one end, and a U shaped seat at the other. What possible mechanisim would possibly prevent those trusses from becoming added mass when the falling debris above hits it? We're talking sledge hammer hits pane of glass stuff here, it's not going to pause and think about it, it's going to smash though it and keep going and what didn't get crunched and spat out the sides is just added to the falling mass.

The problem I think is that you are concentrating too much on the exterior columns. As the floors decended, without the support and with the debries pushing out as it piled up, the exterior columns simply peels off, then broke apart as they extended beyond the steels limit to hold them togther. When you consider that parts started started 400 metres above the ground, with it being forced outwards at 1 metre laterally for every one down, you can easily have debris landing 300-400 m away. Over all however, the collapse after initiation was driven by the floors themselves, the trusses and concrete making up the mass that become the hammer that crushed the building below. Of course the very fast moving massively heavy exterior and also later core beams would do a huge amount of damage to other buildings simply because they are so heavy and fast moving that their energy is far too much for any building to handle.

[leftysergeant]

Most of the concrete that moved outward was dust. It is possible to form that much dust and for there still to be big honking chunks and slabs of concrete falling on the lower floors. The steel pans and the trusses supporting them all fell into the footprint. It was only parts of the outer walls that crossed the street to hit WTC 7. The force of all that material pushing in three dimensions propelled the walls outward with a lot of force. Even the most casual examination of the aerial views shows that something hella powerful and heavy skimmed the roof of WTC 6 on its way to WTC 7.

To get an idea of how much outward pressure the falling mass produced, one need only examine the sections of the bottoms of the walls that were shoved, still in their proper orientation, into WTC 6. In order to produce this much lateral force, there had to be horrendous force coming down from the top.

[MRC_Hans]

I already said that. I don't believe a dynamic mass falling over the sides enough to destroy other buildings could leave enough of a dynamic mass to fall down the center pulverizing floors in mid air all the way down at the speed that it did.

Once the collapse was over, which shape did the wreckage pile have? Was it:

1) A mound?

2) A crater?

To save time, I'll answer for you. As anybody can ascertain from countless pictures, it took the shape of a mound. Even though much of each building collapsed down into multiple storeys of basement, the wreckage formed a mound.

Why is this important? - Because if most of the material had fallen out to the side, we would have seen a crater. We did not see a crater, and this means most of the material fell on the floors below the collapse zone.

Since you onserve that even the minority part of the mass which fell on the adjacent buildings was enough to destroy several of them, it follows that the majority of material which impacted on the lower floors was clearly also enough to destroy them.

OK?

Hans

[mjd1982]

Please address all these quotes:

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

Take your time. I look forward to your assessment of WTC 7's condition after reading these accounts.

Since we're keeping track, this is the first time I am making this request.


Good. And it will be the last.

I'm going to address these testimonies, and then I will ask you why you will not address, for the 7th time now, mine. And we can put this to bed.

To start of with the 1st link, I will list all the quotes in bold:


"The building was fully involved in fire."
All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild.
with fire on nearly all floors
fully involved in flames
fire was going virtually on every floor
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories
Seven was free burning
building 7 was really roaring.
Seven World Trade was going heavy
Everybody was expecting that to come down
. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out
It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable
7 WTC was ablaze and damaged
The flames were coming out of every window of that building
When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again
Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.
you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block
firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse,
And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building
heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.
7 World Trade was burning up at the time
the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building.
Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside
and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse
We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
"7 has got fire on several floors."
They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily
No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him
They are worried that number 7 is burning
they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire
beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC
Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down
and there was fire on every floor
At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it.
The 7 World Trade Center was roaring
Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site
7, was fully involved
7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable
7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire.
No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire


Excellent. So what we have is firefighters stating that from their POV, 7 was fully aflame. I do not dispute that they saw this.

We have some claiming that they thought it was going to collapse. I do not dispute that they thought this.

Let's move on to the next link, dealing with damage:


The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building
I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.
A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center
I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone
but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good
this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right,
nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it
"I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,"
I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner
7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse.
The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center
the whole corner of the building was missing.at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there
apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already
the door obviously had shifted or something
The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower.
At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse
t's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there.
Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse


Okay. So here we have accounts of firefighters stating that from what they saw, the building had been severely damaged in part, and some of them thought it could collapse.

I dont disagree that they thought the building had been severly damaged; I dont disagree that they thought it could collapse.

Onto the final line of kook defense, the accounts of withdrawal. The smarter of you will know whats coming here:


They backed me off the rig because Seven was in dead jeopardy, so they backed everybody off and moved us to the rear end of Vesey Street. We just stood there for a half hour, 40 minutes, because Seven was in imminent collapse and finally did come down
We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured
We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing
Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center
wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down,
Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse.
Q. A collapse zone?

A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed
We heard reports all day long of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings."
It could have been an hour, hour and a half we were doing that before we were ordered to move away from that part of Tower No. 1 because there was an imminent danger of collapse of World Trade Center No. 5 and 7.
It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall.”
Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."
Building 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now
A: Yes, so basically they measured out how far the building was going to come, so we knew exactly where we could stand.

Q: So they just put you in a safe area, safe enough for when that building came down?

A: 5 blocks. 5 blocks away. We still could see. Exactly right on point, the cloud just stopped right there. Then when that building was coming down, that same rumbling.
We were inside the perimeter, more or less -- that's where the car was -- of where Seven World Trade Center was. We started back going east, I guess it is. ...We were inside this perimeter although we didn't realize it at the time
we were ordered—well, we were ordered several times, but the Captain of, I think it was a rescue company or a squad refused to leave. Finally he gave up, he said there was nothing he could do and we all left that area. This is in the collapse zone of tower 7.
We waited until tower 7 collapsed and at this point, we went into the area and assessed the damage that was done to the buildings and to see if we could control the fires that resulted from the collapse of tower 7
...I guess it was a Chief was saying clear the area, because they were worried about number Seven World Trade Center coming down and burying guys who were digging. So basically we went back to the rig because they were clearing that area out. It took about three hours for Seven World Trade Center to actually come down
remember later in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about Seven coming down. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for Seven to come down, they kept backing us up Vesey, almost like a full block. They were concerned about Seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up.
Eventually they had ordered everybody away from the area again because of building 7.
they were telling us 7 is going to go, 7 is going to go, so we kind of backed away.
but we were told 5 minutes [to cease rescue operations on the pile], I don't know how many times.
I would say approximately maybe 2:00 roughly, where we started to operate and then they asked us to fall back again due to the potential of 7 World Trade Center collapsing.
They were worried about 7 at the time. The decision was made not to do it, not to get anybody else hurt. That's when we backed up and they said let's wait for this other building before we continue any work
they had no idea which way it was going to collapse and they just knew it was going to collapse and they positioned us outside of it.
They made us evacuate due to the fear of 7 coming down.
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down
they were worried about Building 7 because when the second tower came down, they were worried about parts of – actually, when the first tower came down, they were worried about parts of Building 7 collapsing, so I remember getting into Building 7 and searching.
I remember coming out of the building now because they were afraid of Building 7 coming down, and all the other buildings around it getting knocked down. So they took us out of the building. –
Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that's when 7 collapsed. Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess. –
But anyway, more to the point, a rumor started to develop that tower 7 was going to fall on us or nearby us
His name is Chief Haring. Great guy. But he said, you know, it's not going to be a problem. Tower 7 may collapse. It's not going to be anywhere near here
He basically was incredulous and said: "What are you crazy? You've moved into the collapse zone, and if this collapse occurs, the dust cloud is going to knock out that entire park.
Then we were just hanging out watching building 7 ready to go
7 World Trade Center? I couldn’t even watch that. I said that’s enough. I refused to watch that. I took R-and-R. I said you guys can watch that one. But they got streams and they contained the fire. I mean, the objective was nobody else got killed, the fire did not jump the street.
We heard a mayday for everybody to get out of the building (Verizon Bldg., next to WTC 7) -- no, I'm sorry, an "urgent," three "urgents," and we came out of the building. I'd say that was like an hour and a half, two hours later. We were then positioned on Vesey Street between North End and the West Side Highway because there was an imminent collapse [warning] on 7 World Trade, and it did collapse.
The only thing that had me really frustrated was they wasn't really trying to let us go back down there. (After the collapse of the second building). I understand after it was unsafe.
“Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out
While we were searching the subbasements (of building 6) they decided that Seven World Trade Center which was across the street was going to collapse, so they called us out. We were so far down we couldn’t hear them, but we came out after we searched the subbasements. Actually we came out on the Seven World Trade Center parkway street when came out they were calling us on the radio to tell us to get out. I then reported that the search was negative and then they wouldn’t let anybody near the site pretty much because Seven World Trade Center was going to come down
...And that was one of the directions from the command post, to make sure we clear the collapse zone from 7 and this is a 600-foot-tall building, so we had to clear a 600-foot radius from that building
All later attempts to return to the WTC were stopped by the pending, and eventual collapse of Building 7 and the uncontrolled fires
Several attempts were made to assist the trapped, but we were kept out due to the uncontrolled fires and other building collapsing around us. Returned to the site on 2-3 occasions...in an effort to help with evacuation but was stopped due to the imminent collapse of 7 WTC.
So we were doing searches, stretching lines, we were doing everything that we could possibly do. We were kind of overwhelmed at the task at hand. Like I said we operated for about three and half hours and then we went to take breather, and as we moved out of the area we weren’t permitted back in the area by that time by a number of Chiefs that were in charge. –
But they weren’t really getting [sic] guys get too deep into it because of the possible pending collapse of Seven World Trade. ...We were staged there a good part of the afternoon until Seven finally did collapse.
At 5:20, No. 7 finally falls. They've been waiting for it to go so they can move the firemen and search-and-rescue teams in
a stampede over pickaxes and oxygen tanks. They head out toward the crushed fire trucks. "They're looking for their brothers," says an ambulance driver.
He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there
Because they were just adamant about 7 coming down immediately. I think we probably got out of that rubble and 18 minutes later is when 7 came down.
'We had cleared an enormous collapse zone for that, and it still wasn't big enough. When the thing came down, the rubble and the dust came across the West Side Highway, over and past the rubble from the towers that was there.'"
was the one calamity that was not a surprise. Police had evacuated the area hours ago, fearful building number 7 would indeed fall down
'That building is coming down,' he said with a drained casualness. 'Really?' I asked. At 47 stories, it would be a skyscraper in most cities, centerpiece of the horizon. But in New York, it was nothing but a nondescript box with fire coming out of the windows. 'When?' 'Tonight ... Maybe tomorrow morning.' This was around 5:15 p.m. I know because five minutes later, at 5:20, the building, 7 World Trade Center, crumbled."
And I remember Chief Nigro coming back at that point saying I don't want anybody else killed and to take everybody two blocks up virtually to North End and Vesey
We were all pretty much on board that tower 7 was going to fall. We just didn't know when and in what direction


Took a little longer than I thought. But good. So we have a list of testimonies illustrating that some firefighters were pulled back to a security perimeter, because it was suspected that 7 might collapse. Good. I do not doubt for one second these testimonies.

In short, I have no doubt that from the pov of the FFs who have stated so, that 7 was fully aflame. I have no doubt that some FFs thought it might collapse. I accept those testimonies. But now what you have to do, is tell me why you dont accept the testimonies of the 1st responders who state that 7 was going to be blown up. Because the fact that some FFs thought the building was heavily aflame doesnt mean that it wasnt blown up. The fact that some FFs thought the building was going to collapse due to fire, doesnt mean it wasnt blown up. But the fact that you have several 1st responders on video testifying to the fact that they were told that 7 was going to be blown up/brought down/taken down, is illustrative of the fact, almost certainly that it was, or that at the very least, contingencies were in place to facilitate its implosion, else such order would neve have been issued..

It is this aspect of mutual exclusivity that the kook brigade, in thei myopic zeal, fail to notice. Your testimonies exist perfectly happily with mine. I can accept them. Mine however, cannot exist inside your world, hence why we have had 15 pages of posts without one serious attempt at addressing them.

So I will ask again, for the 7th time. Anyone who gives a good answer can have the other chaps bell.

Boy do i love this forum!

[JimBenArm]

Good. And it will be the last.

I'm going to address these testimonies, and then I will ask you why you will not address, for the 7th time now, mine. And we can put this to bed.

To start of with the 1st link, I will list all the quotes in bold:



Excellent. So what we have is firefighters stating that from their POV, 7 was fully aflame. I do not dispute that they saw this.

We have some claiming that they thought it was going to collapse. I do not dispute that they thought this.

Let's move on to the next link, dealing with damage:



Okay. So here we have accounts of firefighters stating that from what they saw, the building had been severely damaged in part, and some of them thought it could collapse.

I dont disagree that they thought the building had been severly damaged; I dont disagree that they thought it could collapse.

Onto the final line of kook defense, the accounts of withdrawal. The smarter of you will know whats coming here:



Took a little longer than I thought. But good. So we have a list of testimonies illustrating that some firefighters were pulled back to a security perimeter, because it was suspected that 7 might collapse. Good. I do not doubt for one second these testimonies.

In short, I have no doubt that from the pov of the FFs who have stated so, that 7 was fully aflame. I have no doubt that some FFs thought it might collapse. I accept those testimonies. But now what you have to do, is tell me why you dont accept the testimonies of the 1st responders who state that 7 was going to be blown up. Because the fact that some FFs thought the building was heavily aflame doesnt mean that it wasnt blown up. The fact that some FFs thought the building was going to collapse due to fire, doesnt mean it wasnt blown up. But the fact that you have several 1st responders on video testifying to the fact that they were told that 7 was going to be blown up/brought down/taken down, is illustrative of the fact, almost certainly that it was, or that at the very least, contingencies were in place to facilitate its implosion, else such order would neve have been issued..

It is this aspect of mutual exclusivity that the kook brigade, in thei myopic zeal, fail to notice. Your testimonies exist perfectly happily with mine. I can accept them. Mine however, cannot exist inside your world, hence why we have had 15 pages of posts without one serious attempt at addressing them.

So I will ask again, for the 7th time. Anyone who gives a good answer can have the other chaps bell.

Boy do i love this forum!
Between the typos and bizarre wording you use here, I can't for the life of me discern a coherent idea. So, maybe you need to go back and work on your communication skills, because this makes no sense whatsoever.
There's a few other skills you need to work on as well, but we'll start there.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

It is this aspect of mutual exclusivity that the kook brigade, in thei myopic zeal, fail to notice. Your testimonies exist perfectly happily with mine. I can accept them. Mine however, cannot exist inside your world, hence why we have had 15 pages of posts without one serious attempt at addressing them.

So I will ask again, for the 7th time. Anyone who gives a good answer can have the other chaps bell.

Boy do i love this forum!Already answered. Perhaps you would love this forum even more if you actually read some of the posts in answer to your questions. But we're a patient bunch (well some of us, heheh), so I'll repeat:

The sounds that come from the breaking up of the structural elements of a huge building can easily be mistaken for explosions. Also, when a huge fire is raging (and you just acknowledged that one did), things do in fact explode. Lots of things that are commonly found in office buildings can explode in a fire, this is one of the hazards of being a fire-fighter.

So there is absolutely nothing odd about people reporting explosions. In fact, it would be more odd if ppeople had reported the whole thing to be silent.

Since, as you also acknowledge, WTC7 was in jeopardy, being deemed so unstable that fighting the fires inside it was abandoned, it would probably have been neccessary to bring it down, had it not collapsed on its own. So there might have been talks of bringing it down. Other reasons for such statements could of course be misunderstandings during the general confusion on a very chaotic day. I don't think the people ordering others to withdraw behind the safety-line took much care to explain exactly what was happening (if they knew), I think they were just busy chasing people away, so shouts of "its coming down", "it will be taken down", or "it's going to blow" cannot be taken as exact descriptions of any particular plans.

Hans

[DGM]

Between the typos and bizarre wording you use here, I can't for the life of me discern a coherent idea. So, maybe you need to go back and work on your communication skills, because this makes no sense whatsoever.
There's a few other skills you need to work on as well, but we'll start there.
Jim:
I agree with you, What he seems to want is us to ignore all the other evidence and concentrate on the few witnesses that he believes. In other words try to falsify their beliefs.

[CHF]

I don't believe a dynamic mass falling over the sides enough to destroy other buildings could leave enough of a dynamic mass to fall down the center pulverizing floors in mid air all the way down at the speed that it did.

So how long should it have taken for 50,000 and 120,000 ton masses to smash their way through the towers? 30 seconds? A minute?

I don't think you're comprehending just how much weight we're talking about here. The Titanic was 46,000 tons. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is 105,000 tons.

When that kind of mass finds itself in a dyanamic state against a building that is 95% air it isn't going to be significantly slowed down.

[sts60]

I remember some USAR guys talking about the pancake collapse of a concrete parking garage, and how struck they were (not literally! fortunately) by the rapidity of the event. "It was just BoomBoomBoom", as one of them said. Not that I am directly comparing it to WTC; I'm just illustrating how our Hollywood-condition expectation of such events is out of line with reality.

I was wondering about the following by ZENSMACK89:

I didn't have any access to any physical evidence so I couldn't perform much of my own investigation.

What would you do with the physical evidence?
What qualifications do you have to perform such an investigation?

Seriously. You know, as an engineer I deal with some materials science issues and as a (volunteer) firefighter I have training in building construction and fire behavior. But I freely admit that I am not qualified to perform a useful investigation myself.

[Belz...]

“He did. He was on the 78th floor, BELOW the impact point.”
So it never occurred to him that there might… what? WHAT?

Was that supposed to be an argument ?

No one who saw this coming could get in touch with how many... 300 Fire fighters in time?

Indeed.

But they knew it was coming and knew exactly what happened a moment after the collapse.

Not exactly. It took four years. Didn't you read the posts, yet ?

Some of it? What happened to NIST in their fire test with only some of it removed? Better yet what still didn’t happen after 2 hours with all of it removed?

What the hell are you talking about ? Learn to use the quote function.

“Didn't they order the evacuation of the building?”
Evidently not soon enough.

Yes, that is very unfortunate. Tragic. But it doesn't mean squat.

I not make anything up. Look up Jerome Hauer.

You ARE making things up. You think his snap interpretation of the even is the same as NIST's conclusion four years later.

The plane hits the building and fragments into millions of shotgun sized pellets shearing off the fire proofing.

THAT IS A STRAWMAN, Zen. Give it up. Nobody's saying it became shotgun-pellet sized fragments except you.

Then what…? It carries on and takes out the support columns? Did NIST have a test and shoot one of the columns with a shotgun also? How scientific.

How would YOU have done it ? Crash an airliner into a similar building and see what happens ?

“The temperature has nothing to do with the fireproofing.”
If you want it to compromise the Steel it has everything to do with it.

I'll spell it out for you: removing the fireproofing will not make the temperature higher. What it will do is raise the temperature OF THE STEEL.

Why don’t you tell me? You’re the one claiming the plane took out the building.

No, the entire world is claiming that because we SAW the plane crash into it, the jet fuel DID start fires, the exterior columns DID buckle and the building THEN collapsed. There is NO need to add more speculation to this.

The Anthrax article was a reply to someone who asked. Try to follow along.

Let's stick to 9/11, shall we ?

Yes but structural Engineers can tell you what happen inside a building from video of outside the building.

They can guess, but without actual analysis their opinions are tentative.

You keep saying they knew but 300 fire fighters obviously didn’t know or have a clue and no one filled them in.

That's because their job is to go inside the buildings, stop the fires and save people's lives.

“No, we don't believe your silly caricature of the events.”
Then you don’t believe the official caricature.

That's not what the "official" story says. Try again.

“And AGAIN you show that you don't understand ANYTHING. They KNEW pretty much WHY it had collapsed, but it took TIME to determine the exact forces and mechanics at work.” “Geez.”

You said it. Geez

Now you're just playing silly juvenile games. Either debate honestly or not at all.

“Funny you should say that, since what I've seen of Gravy shows he keeps his cool, unlike the fanatic CTers.”
Excuse me for being disrespectful to your hero. I’ll try to behave myself.

You can't read minds. You should stop trying. No one's my hero, here.

My point stands. From what I've seen he keeps his cool in those situations. Prove me wrong.

“Not really. It IS, however, considered to be something that leaves evidence.”
Aren’t there thousands of people whose remains were never found? Didn’t one firefighter describe the biggest piece he found was a 4 inch piece of telephone keypad?

That's possible. What of it ?

[Viper Daimao]

I'd just like to take a time out here, and say that for stating NIST's theory of collapse initiation I've gained a ton of new respect for Zen. Not being sarcastic or derogatory here, I'm 100% honest. Now that we've established this foundation of what he believes and what he thinks is wrong with the report we can really get a good discussion going.

[Belz...]

Much like the blind faith followers of the religious right, this present administration, lies about WMD's, and lies about 9-11.

Open wide and swallow.

Are you going, at ANY point, to present the evidence that you think is compelling about 9/11 being an inside job ? Or are you just going to continue insulting people for no reason ?

There is no proof that the plane, could and did knock the towers down on its own.

Of course there is.

But hey, let's look at this from another angle, shall we ? Why don't you tell me what you THINK should've happened following the plane impact, and why ?

Science is real. Just not present in any official explanation.

Very well. Please explain why the official reports are unscientific. And if you're going to say they "omitted" certain things, don't forget to list those.

Why would they want to get me banned? And so quickly? Are they already all out of their scary facts? Well now they really showed me huh? This is a real disappointment anyhow. They've shown me nothing so far. Trying to get me banned is just a copout.

See, Zen ? This is typical truther mentality, right there. Rev tells you something, and you simply believe him. You don't bother to check, hear other people out, or think about it for yourself. You just gulp it down.

Truther my eye.

I didn't have any access to any physical evidence so I couldn't perform much of my own investigation.

And yet you claim that the people who did botched their investigation ? How would you know, now ?

Truther my left, grazed eye.

[Belz...]

"according to NIST"

Yers, contrary to truther belief, adults tend to trust people with expertise in various fields when they don't have that expertise themselves. Blindly doubting everything doesn't bring knowledge, but ignorance.

No I don't believe the official version.

Quite evidently. But WHY you don't believe it is also important. Just taking this position and defending it against all opposition is silly.

I know what he's doing. I know what you're all doing. How do you all assume to know or to have read more then anyone else? Bare assertions on everything from what I understand to how old I am. You’re all full of it. Bare assertions and hand waving is all any of you have because you support an official version which is nothing more then just that.

I guess now we know what YOU'RE doing.

None of you have shown anything so how do I know you read it or understand it? Understand what? Understand its bull?

And here you expose it quite succintly: you have DECIDED that the "official" story is false. You didn't check any facts, you didn't read and try to understand the report, and yet you critisize it. Why ? Because your "conclusion" is actually a premise upon which you base your entire case. That's called circular reasoning, by the way, and it is a logical fallacy of the worst order.

To me that’s the key. Independent research that forms a consensus. Not a bunch of people working together backwards towards the same predetermined conclusion.

:i:

I don’t believe any of it because although the planes and the structural damage were severe I don’t feel the collapse itself or the way the collapse occurred is sufficiently explained by any of this.

Zen, what you "feel" is irrelevant. All you've shown, here, is that you are using an argument from incredulity. Basically, it isn't true because you can't bring yourself to believe it.

The collapse of the WTC though many things was not a newly discovered source of energy. In other words it’s my opinion it should have stopped somewhere on the way down considering the loss of mass over the sides.

That's a reasonable assumption until you learn about the forces involved. Tell you what: why don't you do a little research about thoe forces and then see how the bottom, undamaged part of the WTC towers could never, ever stop that falling mass.

[Belz...]

Zensmack do not allow yourself to be goaded. They want to get you banned and they will queue up to report every breach of the rules in your posts. Just ignore them and report their attacks on you.

No, we don't want anyone banned, here. Unlike people at LC, we don't kick people away just because we don't like their opinions.

[Regnad Kcin]

Once again, ZENSMACK89:

Do you maintain that a "plane alone" brought down each of the Twin Towers? Yes or no.

You are interested in the "truth," correct?No I don't believe the official version.Which is not a yes or no to my specific question above. So let's try it this way:

A) A "plane alone" brought down each of the Twins.
B) A series of interconnected events*, including the initial damage created by each airplane, brought down both towers.

Please choose A or B.



*The events not to include unsupported speculation such as space beam weapons, nukes, or controlled demolition.

[Horatius]

But now what you have to do, is tell me why you dont accept the testimonies of the 1st responders who state that 7 was going to be blown up. Because the fact that some FFs thought the building was heavily aflame doesnt mean that it wasnt blown up. The fact that some FFs thought the building was going to collapse due to fire, doesnt mean it wasnt blown up. But the fact that you have several 1st responders on video testifying to the fact that they were told that 7 was going to be blown up/brought down/taken down, is illustrative of the fact, almost certainly that it was, or that at the very least, contingencies were in place to facilitate its implosion, else such order would neve have been issued..



I'll just quote myself here:


What you need to realize is that people don't speak with absolute precision.

When speaking aloud, people make mistakes all the time - they stutter, say "uhm" a lot, they backtrack, repeat words, use the wrong words, use the right words in the wrong order, and a host of other problems. Even intelligent, experienced speakers make these mistakes when speaking extemporaneously. It takes practice to deliver a speech smoothly.

So when transcribed into text, it looks like there are a lot of problems, because people expect text to have been edited; but live speaking isn't edited, it's just out there.

Ask any journalist, and most will tell you, the easiest way to make someone look like an idiot in print is to transcribe their spoken answers exactly as they spoke them.



So, yes, you have a few guys, out of hundreds, who used words like "blow up". But they were speaking casually, in a very stressful situation, while trying to get a bunch of journalists and what not to get the **** out of the way of the big burning building that was about to fall on them. Why is it so hard to believe they may have used a bit of hyperbole in order to get their point across? It's not like they were expecting people to be going over their words with a magnifying glass six years later!




It is this aspect of mutual exclusivity that the kook brigade, in thei myopic zeal, fail to notice. Your testimonies exist perfectly happily with mine. I can accept them. Mine however, cannot exist inside your world, hence why we have had 15 pages of posts without one serious attempt at addressing them.



But that's a point CTists refuse to acknowledge - your ideas cannot coexist "perfectly happily" with the (now acknowledged by you!) testimony that the building was fully involved with fire. The explosives and wiring needed to bring down the building in a CD could not have survived for hours in such an envirionment. They are mutually exclusive. You can't just wave your hands and make this go away.



So I will ask again, for the 7th time. Anyone who gives a good answer can have the other chaps bell.

Boy do i love this forum!


So, where's my bell?

[ZENSMACK89]

Which is not a yes or no to my specific question above. So let's try it this way:

A) A "plane alone" brought down each of the Twins.
B) A series of interconnected events*, including the initial damage created by each airplane, brought down both towers.

Please choose A or B.



*The events not to include unsupported speculation such as space beam weapons, nukes, or controlled demolition.
When I said plane only I meant the plane and what is claimed that the plane caused or triggered. It's the same thing to me. I wasn't trying to claim the plane and what it initiated caused no damage. I was drawing a comparison between people who believe one thing or the other.

From the following I believe "B)" the most. I would say you believe "A)" the most. I would then claim if "A)" can do it then "B)" can do it even better.

A) The Planes (and whatever the planes initiated)

B) Planes plus explosive devices.

c:)no planes at all just explosives.

Isn't "A)" what you believe the most out of all these choices? That's all I'm saying.

[T.A.M.]

Its what he believes, what I believe, what the MAJORITY of the world believes, what a group of PhDs in civil engineering, physics, etc.. believe, it is what the majority of the scientific and engineering community believe.

How about you?

TAM:)

[Viper Daimao]

When I said plane only I meant the plane and what is claimed that the plane caused or triggered. It's the same thing to me. I wasn't trying to claim the plane and what it initiated caused no damage. I was drawing a comparison between people who believe one thing or the other.

From the following I believe "B)" the most. I would say you believe "A)" the most. I would then claim if "A)" can do it then "B)" can do it even better.

A) The Planes (and whatever the planes initiated)

B) Planes plus explosive devices.

c:)no planes at all just explosives.

Isn't "A)" what you believe the most out of all these choices? That's all I'm saying.

Yes, a plane with explosives most likely would have brought down the towers also. The problem is that it would have looked totally different, and there's no evidence for it.

[ZENSMACK89]

When thousands of tons of steel is in motion it's going to just keep going til it hits something solid to stop it. Since the WTC's were "tubes within tubes" & basically "hollow" there was just some resistence to the structure. But that little bit of resistence helped make the collaspe go on for about 20 seconds.
Isn't that sort of a contridiction? The towers fell on themselves. How could it be something solid or greater falling on something hollow or less if it's all from the same building. If anything the falling mass is broken up tower falling on still intact tower made of the same tons of steel you speak of. I think I even read that the top floors were lighter then the lower floors but I'll have to check on that.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'd just like to take a time out here, and say that for stating NIST's theory of collapse initiation I've gained a ton of new respect for Zen. Not being sarcastic or derogatory here, I'm 100% honest. Now that we've established this foundation of what he believes and what he thinks is wrong with the report we can really get a good discussion going.
Thank you.

[beachnut]

Isn't that sort of a contridiction? The towers fell on themselves. How could it be something solid or greater falling on something hollow or less if it's all from the same building. If anything the falling mass is broken up tower falling on still intact tower made of the same tons of steel you speak of. I think I even read that the top floors were lighter then the lower floors but I'll have to check on that.
You are not able to comprehend simple things, you twist the facts to fit your world of CT. Good luck, you take ideas and twist them to fit your own views. You remind me of the anti-intellectual sites of PrisonPlanet and Inforwars, web sites for real dumb people who believe lies and propaganda spewed by real dumb guys.

Yes the top floor are lighter than the lower floors. Different steel grades and types were used as needed to ensure strength of the WTC. But you must get your mind straight and use real experts who understand the collapse and see what they think. You need to get away from asking dumb questions and being able to answer the tough questions.

Do you know what Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer of the WTC, said about 9/11 and his building collapsing?

[ZENSMACK89]

I don't know if I did this right.

Was that supposed to be an argument ?

No it was a question.

Indeed.

Indeed? This isn't Esnir is it?

Not exactly. It took four years. Didn't you read the posts, yet ?

Ii wasn't taking about NIST there. I was talking about people like Hauer.

What the hell are you talking about ? Learn to use the quote function.

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141

Yes, that is very unfortunate. Tragic. But it doesn't mean squat.

It means more then squat.

You ARE making things up. You think his snap interpretation of the even is the same as NIST's conclusion four years later.

He came pretty close and then weighed in on the Anthrax that afternoon and hit the bullseye again.

THAT IS A STRAWMAN, Zen. Give it up. Nobody's saying it became shotgun-pellet sized fragments except you.

Actually NIST did a shotgun test to simulate the palne crash effet on the fire proofing .



How would YOU have done it ? Crash an airliner into a similar building and see what happens ?

Just asking someone who seems to think they have it all figured out.

I'll spell it out for you: removing the fireproofing will not make the temperature higher. What it will do is raise the temperature OF THE STEEL.

That's what I was.. never mind

No, the entire world is claiming that because we SAW the plane crash into it, the jet fuel DID start fires, the exterior columns DID buckle and the building THEN collapsed. There is NO need to add more speculation to this.

Yeah that's what I said you believe. The plane.

Let's stick to 9/11, shall we ?

The Cipro was given out to the White House on 9-11

They can guess, but without actual analysis their opinions are tentative.

I agree. The opinions are still tentative.

That's because their job is to go inside the buildings, stop the fires and save people's lives.

What is it you debunkers claim "Pull" means?

That's not what the "official" story says. Try again.

Well I don't believe it. Sorry.

Now you're just playing silly juvenile games. Either debate honestly or not at all.

honestly? geez

You can't read minds. You should stop trying. No one's my hero, here.
I can be your hero. lol

My point stands. From what I've seen he keeps his cool in those situations. Prove me wrong.
I think theres a clip on YouTube that does just that and there's nothing cool about it.



That's possible. What of it ?

What of it. I think you claimed an explosive device would have to leave behind traces of itself. No some would claim it did like Steven Jones. I would claim that because of everything that was never found traces of the explosive device are possible to also not be found. That's all I meant.

[ZENSMACK89]

I guess I did it wrong. Sorry.

[ZENSMACK89]

You are not able to comprehend simple things, you twist the facts to fit your world of CT. Good luck, you take ideas and twist them to fit your own views. You remind me of the anti-intellectual sites of PrisonPlanet and Inforwars, web sites for real dumb people who believe lies and propagate spewed by real dumb guys.


"real dumb people" lol classic

Yes the top floor are lighter than the lower floors. Different steel grades and types were used as needed to ensure strength of the WTC. But you must get your mind straight and use real experts who understand the collapse and see what they think. You need to get away from asking dumb questions and being able to answer the tough questions.


I didn't bring it up. Get away? You mean from you? Not a problem.

Do you know what Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer of the WTC, said about 9/11 and his building collapsing?

In his 1964 building analysis or his revisionism after 9-11?

[Corsair 115]

II would claim that because of everything that was never found traces of the explosive device are possible to also not be found. That's all I meant.But remember the official verison of events does not rest on one particular piece of evidence or another, it rests on the totality of the evidence. That is, all the evidence taken together, in which one piece reinforces what is found in another piece.

Consider that, if explosives were used to bring the WTC buildings down, explosives, particularly ones powerful enough to do the job, would make very loud, distinct noises. These noises would have been recorded on all of the great many videos there are of the collapses, especially those videos taken close to the towers.

No video shows any signs of such distinctive sounds on the audio track. This piece of evidence reinforces the fact that no physical traces of explosives were found after the collapses. These pieces put together reinforce each other and when taken together point towards no explosives being used.

This is how cases are built, with layers of individual pieces of evidence reinforcing and supporting each other, with the totality all pointing to one conclusion.

[ZENSMACK89]

Why not?

Just to clarify, I'm not being glib. I'm seriously asking. And the reason is because as someone completely ignorant in the fields of advanced science and mathematics, it seems to me that a phenomenon such as this is not open to opinion. I would posit that there are hard numbers behind it that provide an irrefutable answer one way or the other.

You have taken a position, based on what I can tell, merely on unqualified opinion. If I am wrong, then please enlighten me with the calculations you have done to support your conclusion and I'm sure some of our more qualified forum members will proof them for the benefit of us uneducated folk.
I didn't do calculations of my own. I am basing my opinion on reading both sides of the issue. Some papers I've read have done calculations and disputed findings of researchers like Greening. There's a lot of stuff out there and I try to read up on as much as possible and in doing do don't buy the official version.

What reading, evidence, or calculations, have you found that support your belief in the official version?

[beachnut]

In his 1964 building analysis or his revisionism after 9-11?
That is a lie, false statement or more made up stuff like you would find at PrisonPlanet, inforwars or other truther sites.

[beachnut]

I didn't do calculations of my own. I am basing my opinion on reading both sides of the issue. Some papers I've read have done calculations and disputed findings of researchers like Greening. There's a lot of stuff out there and I try to read up on as much as possible and in doing do don't buy the official version.

What reading, evidence, or calculations, have you found that support your belief in the official version?
There are too many independent source for the "official" story. The 9/11 truth story does not even exist. Can you point to a single coherent story by 9/11 truth? Space beams, thermite (made up out of the blue by Jones in 2005), what do you have to show the "official" story is wrong besides PrisonPlanet tripe and infowars junk? Start here since http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Please list the papers that effectively, or otherwise, dispute the Greening paper. Sources?

[ZENSMACK89]

Once the collapse was over, which shape did the wreckage pile have? Was it:

1) A mound?

2) A crater?

To save time, I'll answer for you. As anybody can ascertain from countless pictures, it took the shape of a mound. Even though much of each building collapsed down into multiple storeys of basement, the wreckage formed a mound.

Why is this important? - Because if most of the material had fallen out to the side, we would have seen a crater. We did not see a crater, and this means most of the material fell on the floors below the collapse zone.

Since you onserve that even the minority part of the mass which fell on the adjacent buildings was enough to destroy several of them, it follows that the majority of material which impacted on the lower floors was clearly also enough to destroy them.

OK?

Hans

The point I was making about the part of the tower that fell on WTC is that it fell across the street to do so not straight down the middle part of a conservation of momentum collapse. It also truly would have met with no resistance and fell at freefall until it hit WTC7 which would have been different if it had fell straight down the middle. I think it's Judy Wood who has pictures of the towers underground after the collapse where the path trains and some of the shops were still much intact. Much more so then anything at ground level. It would appear that whatever crushed 110 stories didn't continue through all of the underground floors to the the same extent it demoliished the floors above ground.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

No I don't endorse the Starwars theory. Just though the pictures were interesting.

[ZENSMACK89]

That is a lie, false statement or more made up stuff like you would find at PrisonPlanet, inforwars or other truther sites.
He's made lot's of statements over the years regarding the towers. Which one are you refering to?

[ZENSMACK89]

But remember the official verison of events does not rest on one particular piece of evidence or another, it rests on the totality of the evidence. That is, all the evidence taken together, in which one piece reinforces what is found in another piece.

Consider that, if explosives were used to bring the WTC buildings down, explosives, particularly ones powerful enough to do the job, would make very loud, distinct noises. These noises would have been recorded on all of the great many videos there are of the collapses, especially those videos taken close to the towers.

No video shows any signs of such distinctive sounds on the audio track. This piece of evidence reinforces the fact that no physical traces of explosives were found after the collapses. These pieces put together reinforce each other and when taken together point towards no explosives being used.

This is how cases are built, with layers of individual pieces of evidence reinforcing and supporting each other, with the totality all pointing to one conclusion.
People are still debating these things you claim don't exsist. There videos on YOUTUBE that claim it.

[ZENSMACK89]

There are too many independent source for the "official" story. The 9/11 truth story does not even exist. Can you point to a single coherent story by 9/11 truth? Space beams, thermite (made up out of the blue by Jones in 2005), what do you have to show the "official" story is wrong besides PrisonPlanet tripe and infowars junk? Start here since http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Please list the papers that effectively, or otherwise, dispute the Greening paper. Sources?
FEMA and NIST don't even concur on what type of collapse happened and how it happened. What's your point?

[ZENSMACK89]

There are too many independent source for the "official" story. The 9/11 truth story does not even exist. Can you point to a single coherent story by 9/11 truth? Space beams, thermite (made up out of the blue by Jones in 2005), what do you have to show the "official" story is wrong besides PrisonPlanet tripe and infowars junk? Start here since http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Please list the papers that effectively, or otherwise, dispute the Greening paper. Sources?
http://www.studyof911.com/

Recent Studyof911 Articles

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
PDF Version DOC Version
Author(s): Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Members, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice)
Statement by Craig T. Furlong and Article Discussion Thread



Calculation of World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse Acceleration
Author(s): "Winston Smith" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Debunking the WTC1 Main Freight Fireball Myth
PDF Version
Author(s): "bsbray" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
Author(s): "Winston Smith" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Addressing Faulty Assumptions of Greening and Others in WTC Momentum Transfer Calculations
PDF Version
Author(s): "bsbray" of Studyof911.com

[beachnut]

He's made lot's of statements over the years regarding the towers. Which one are you refering to?
Please explain, in detail, your false statement. You clearly made a false statement and you want me to explain your false statement? Please present the facts on why you imputed Robertson the way you did?

I would expect Robertson to be on the side of truth. Why is it he understands why his building fell, and the 9/11 truth "expert" are just making up lies and false information?

[Gravy]

I accept those testimonies.Excellent. You're one of the first conspiracists to do so.

But now what you have to do, is tell me why you dont accept the testimonies of the 1st responders who state that 7 was going to be blown up.Please provide me with the testimony of any first responder who state they knew that WTC 7 was going to be blown up. These testimonies can be from before, during, or after 9/11.

Do it or shut your mouth.

[ZENSMACK89]

Please explain, in detail, your false statement. You clearly made a false statement and you want me to explain your false statement? Please present the facts on why you imputed Robertson the way you did?

I would expect Robertson to be on the side of truth. Why is it he understands why his building fell, and the 9/11 truth "expert" are just making up lies and false information?


You brought up Robertson. You asked me what he had to say about 9-11.

When?

[pomeroo]

http://www.studyof911.com/

Recent Studyof911 Articles

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
PDF Version DOC Version
Author(s): Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Members, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice)
Statement by Craig T. Furlong and Article Discussion Thread




You don't have the slightest idea of how thoroughly this bogus article was DEMOLISHED, DESTROYED, DISCREDITED, DEBUNKED by R. Mackey, do you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Please explain, in detail, your false statement. You clearly made a false statement and you want me to explain your false statement? Please present the facts on why you imputed Robertson the way you did?

I would expect Robertson to be on the side of truth. Why is it he understands why his building fell, and the 9/11 truth "expert" are just making up lies and false information?


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

[beachnut]

http://www.studyof911.com/

Recent Studyof911 Articles

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
PDF Version DOC Version
Author(s): Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Members, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice)
Statement by Craig T. Furlong and Article Discussion Thread



Calculation of World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse Acceleration
Author(s): "Winston Smith" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Debunking the WTC1 Main Freight Fireball Myth
PDF Version
Author(s): "bsbray" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations
Author(s): "Winston Smith" of Studyof911.com
Article discussion thread



Addressing Faulty Assumptions of Greening and Others in WTC Momentum Transfer Calculations
PDF Version
Author(s): "bsbray" of Studyof911.com
Another Journal of WOO? And more woo stuff from woo land.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/ (http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/)

Funny stuff. Did you really read this tripe? On August 24th, 2006, Professor Jim Fetzer of the organization Scholars for 9/11 Truth interviewed Wow, it goes on and tries to rip up Greening's model. But Greenings work is a model, not what happen on 9/11. A model to show it is true a gravity collapse can occur, and it did. You made the mistake of thinking this puts the stops on that paper, but as I look at BB paper, it sucks. I will leave the elegant critiques for this pile of BS for someone with extra time. But if you have any education at all, you can see this paper is junk. Can you?

This is great, a whole pile of woo to look at. How do you find the worse papers on 9/11? Just ask ZenSmack89. Thanks, I will look again, but I have seen most of these papers on the web, it all sucks. Not anything usable on 9/11. They debunk themselves quickly and without effort. Which is your favorite, we can save some time. Which one is a paper I have made a mistake labeling junk?

[ZENSMACK89]

You don't have the slightest idea of how thoroughly this bogus article was DEMOLISHED, DESTROYED, DISCREDITED, DEBUNKED by R. Mackey, do you?
There was more then one article. I was responding to someone who asked abot Greening calcultions. No I don't know about the sesmic one being debunked but I'll be glad to happy it.

[ZENSMACK89]

"I will leave the elegant critiques for this pile of BS for someone with extra time."

Good idea. Don't get in over your head with your big mouth.

[beachnut]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

However, O’Sullivan consults “one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.” He is told there is “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”
Robertson was correct. The 1993 bomb proves his bomb assessment correct (small bombs), and the building would survive a slow-moving airplane. FACTS Thank you.

But on 9/11 the planes were not moving slow, they imparted 7 to 11 times the kinetic energy than the design Leslie Robertson had made.

Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet -
" It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

[ZENSMACK89]

Robertson was correct. The 1993 bomb proves his bomb assessment correct (small bombs), and the building would survive a slow-moving airplane. FACTS Thank you.

But on 9/11 the planes were not moving slow, they imparted 7 to 11 times the kinetic energy than the design Leslie Robertson had made.
“little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” - Les Robertson 1964

FACTS Thank you.

Now how would I know which statement from Robertson you were originally looking for?

[beachnut]

"I will leave the elegant critiques for this pile of BS for someone with extra time."

Good idea. Don't get in over your head with your big mouth.
You already blew it, the paper/s have been debunked already. Your list is from truthers with no integrity and not very good at 9/11 topics. Not talk, just facts. Show me the great facts you think are there? You have to be kidding me, this junk is believed to be true by you? Do you even read it? If you had studied 9/11, and understood 9/11, you would be able to see your posted papers as junk. I am sorry you think I am just talking, but if you had read the papers and understood them you would agree with me. If you lack the ability to understand why the papers suck, you either do not care, or you are one of the sad authors of woo.

[ZENSMACK89]

Bare assertions. Hhow surprising.

[Viper Daimao]

I believe Robertson didn't account the jet fuel and fires afterward.

More info: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

[pomeroo]

There was more then one article. I was responding to someone who asked abot Greening calcultions. No I don't know about the sesmic one being debunked but I'll be glad to happy it.


This gem by R. Mackey is worth revisiting as an example of a fantasist claim that has been completely blown out of the water. Don't just happy it: read it!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2506914&highlight=Ross+Furlong#post2506914

[ZENSMACK89]

This gem by R. Mackey is worth revisiting as an example of a fantasist claim that has been completely blown out of the water. Don't just happy it: read it!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2506914&highlight=Ross+Furlong#post2506914
lol

[Corsair 115]

People are still debating these things you claim don't exsist. There videos on YOUTUBE that claim it.1) The above in no way addresses the "totality of the evidence" point I had made.

2) Supply one video of the collapses which have the distinct sounds of explosive charges going off. Either such sounds are there or they are not. If they were indeed present that day then virtually every video of the collapses, especially those close to the towers, should have such sounds on the audio track, so finding numerous examples should be easy. If it is not that should tell you something.

[Regnad Kcin]

Which is not a yes or no to my specific question above. So let's try it this way:

A) A "plane alone" brought down each of the Twins.
B) A series of interconnected events*, including the initial damage created by each airplane, brought down both towers.

Please choose A or B.



*The events not to include unsupported speculation such as space beam weapons, nukes, or controlled demolition.When I said plane only I meant the plane and what is claimed that the plane caused or triggered. It's the same thing to me. I wasn't trying to claim the plane and what it initiated caused no damage. I was drawing a comparison between people who believe one thing or the other.

From the following I believe "B)" the most. I would say you believe "A)" the most. I would then claim if "A)" can do it then "B)" can do it even better.

A) The Planes (and whatever the planes initiated)

B) Planes plus explosive devices.

c:)no planes at all just explosives.

Isn't "A)" what you believe the most out of all these choices? That's all I'm saying.No. I am of the mind that each airplane's impact initiated a series of events which, together, contributed to the destruction of each tower. You were the one who repeatedly claimed "plane[s] alone" did the deed.

I've engaged you in order to determine with more precision what you think happened. One descriptive phrase or another may all be the "same to [you]," but it simply isn't. While the failures of the Twins were straightforward, the process was not simple.

[beachnut]

I believe Robertson didn't account the jet fuel and fires afterward.

More info: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
I think the design impact of a slow moving aircraft would have survived, the fire system working, and no major damage past the shell. An impact of 9/11 was 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT, the impact Robertson expected in the design would be 200 pounds of TNT. Most the plane would fall to the ground.

[ZENSMACK89]

Here are some of my favorites from NIST that I found on

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12)

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142)


Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2) NIST does not comment on this.

“The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” –Sunder NIST

Then…

NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179).


Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177;.)


Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity. This was confirmed by analysis of the post-impact vibration of WTC 2… where the damaged tower oscillated at a period nearly equal to the first mode period calculated for the undamaged structure. (NIST, 2005, p. 144)



At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127)

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142)


The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted… (NIST, 2005)

the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142)

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141

[beachnut]

Bare assertions. Hhow surprising.
All a bunch of junk. Got some real papers? Those are now officially debunked squared.

[ZENSMACK89]

All a bunch of junk. Got some real papers? Those are now officially debunked squared.
Still nothing?

[ZENSMACK89]

I think the design impact of a slow moving aircraft would have survived, the fire system working, and no major damage past the shell. An impact of 9/11 was 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT, the impact Robertson expected in the design would be 200 pounds of TNT. Most the plane would fall to the ground.
Just pointing out he revised his statement from “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

no matter how

[ZENSMACK89]

1) The above in no way addresses the "totality of the evidence" point I had made.

2) Supply one video of the collapses which have the distinct sounds of explosive charges going off. Either such sounds are there or they are not. If they were indeed present that day then virtually every video of the collapses, especially those close to the towers, should have such sounds on the audio track, so finding numerous examples should be easy. If it is not that should tell you something.
How would there be a distinct sound of anything in the middle of a skyscaper collapsing?

[beachnut]

Just pointing out he revised his statement from “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

no matter how
He has never retracted the slow moving aircraft. Your reading comprehension deficit is showing.

[beachnut]

Still nothing?
I read your papers again, all of them still suck.

So which parts of these papers have I messed up on?

There must be something I made a mistake on, what do you think is the best paper and the best points in the paper to support 9/11 truth ideas? I have tried, but the papers are still bad.

[ZENSMACK89]

I read your papers again, all of them still suck.

So which parts of these papers have I messed up on?

There must be something I made a mistake on, what do you think is the best paper and the best points in the paper to support 9/11 truth ideas? I have tried, but the papers are still bad.
What do I think? I thought this was what YOU know?

They've all been debunked according to you. All of them. Don't YOU know where and how they've ALL been debunked? Are they debunked because well... you say so?

"Those are now officially debunked squared."

How so. Specifically?

[ZENSMACK89]

He has never retracted the slow moving aircraft. Your reading comprehension deficit is showing.
Oh yeah sure. Those two statements mean the same thing. No revising at all.

lol

[T.A.M.]

Looks like William Rea is gone for good.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89842

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

What do I think? I thought this was what YOU know?

They've all been debunked according to you. All of them. Don't YOU know where and how they've ALL been debunked? Are they debunked because well... you say so?

"Those are now officially debunked squared."

How so. Specifically?

S. Jones debunked (http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm)

Please read and offer a full rebuttal.

[Revolutionary91]

S. Jones debunked (http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm)

Please read and offer a full rebuttal.

Oh dear. The first line of that paper doesn't bode well.

my day job for the last twenty years is in the visual arts

[NDBoston]

Oh dear. The first line of that paper doesn't bode well.

I guess theology professor or water tester is more meaningful.

[T.A.M.]

I personally like "Tour Guide"...it has a nice ring to it...lol

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Stateofgrace im afraid there are errors in your paper.

He states that

"The photograph below shows the ‘considerable dark smoke’ pouring from the building: is this not due to a major fire?"

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911_files/image001.jpg

I proved this totally false in these posts

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848595&postcount=3109

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848714&postcount=3111

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848748&postcount=3114

[beachnut]

What do I think? I thought this was what YOU know?

They've all been debunked according to you. All of them. Don't YOU know where and how they've ALL been debunked? Are they debunked because well... you say so?

"Those are now officially debunked squared."

How so. Specifically?
They are all junk, that is one reason you will not see them in a real journal. You have chosen junk, you should go to PrisonPlanet, or Infowars, they have junk you will like. I prefer facts, and there are no facts to support the papers you posted. They do not even touch Greenings work, and since you can not support one paragraph, then I assume you have no idea what you think is correct in the list of papers you posted.

I would expect there was a high point in the papers you sent, you had a quick list but seem woefully ignorant of the content. Please point to some serious papers, or please explain why the set you submitted has already been debunked, proved wrong, and do not properly critique Greenings work?

What is the best of the group? Have you really read any of these papers?

[beachnut]

Stateofgrace im afraid there are errors in your paper.

He states that

"The photograph below shows the ‘considerable dark smoke’ pouring from the building: is this not due to a major fire?"

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911_files/image001.jpg

I proved this totally false in these posts

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848595&postcount=3109

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848714&postcount=3111

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848748&postcount=3114
But there were major fires in WTC7, proves you false, as in wrong again boy wonder. But then you fail to read and comprehend, or pay attention. You believe there were no men on the moon, you are not too smart on that one. You have a CT on OKC, you are not very good at this CT stuff. Why? Where did you go wrong? Fooled by the idiots at LC, you seem to be an easy target for idiotic CT ideas. Why are you unable to see through the lies of all these CT dolts?

Your old posts, are not very good. You need to read them, they have major mistakes. You did not make any sense. I would say your old posts proved how bad a researcher you are, and how bad you are at judgment, and critical thinking. If I did not talk to actually witnesses about the fire, and there was not a lot of photo of fire, and other testimony of fire, you may have a point. But alas, you were 10 or 11 and did not pay attention when the buildings fell the first time, and you have not read enough, and have understood enough to make a rational decision on much of anything from 9/11 to the moon, you are not a rational person. Even LC has you fooled.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I'm gonna solve this whole smoke idea right now.

I'm a firefighter & if there's any other firemen on JREF they would agree with me when I say:

IF THERE'S ALOT OF SMOKE THEN THERE'S ALOT OF FIRE. LESS SMOKE MEANS LESS OF A FIRE.

Sorry but there was a hell of alot of smoke on 9/11 from the Twin Towers, WTC7 & the Pentagon.

I want the Conspiracists to try & prove me wrong! I bet they won't! :rolleyes:

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace im afraid there are errors in your paper.

He states that

"The photograph below shows the ‘considerable dark smoke’ pouring from the building: is this not due to a major fire?"

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.jpgfile:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/PD/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911_files/image001.jpg

I proved this totally false in these posts

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848595&postcount=3109

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848714&postcount=3111

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2848748&postcount=3114

Don't be afraid Rev,simply offer your full rebuttal.

[Revolutionary91]

Yet mopre garbage from this joke of a paper

Molten metal beneath the rubble may have a number of causes, the most likely of which is the mgh energy of the building. If only 0.1 % of its collapse energy (one thousandth) were converted to heat, then that would be sufficient to melt a metric tonne of steel.

Yeah right. The mgh of the building had enough energy to pulverise concrete and create molten metal by some process that only god knows about.

[ZENSMACK89]

S. Jones debunked (http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm)

Please read and offer a full rebuttal.
I’ll read it but just skimming through it now he’s already got some problems.

“But thermite is an incendiary, a vastly different product to HMX and RDX which are military explosives like TNT that can be used in civilian demolition projects. Thermite is a slow-burning product in comparison, does not explode, and, as far as I can determine, is never used in demolition of buildings.”

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/375503/thermite_pipe_bomb_loud/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

[beachnut]

Yet mopre garbage from this joke of a paper

Yeah right. The mgh of the building had enough energy to pulverise concrete and create molten metal by some process that only god knows about.
Not as good as your neoNazi sites (I have found most people who use the neoNazi sites are well below average mentality; have you?), but you forgot to do the calculation, can the heat of the collapse, melt steel? Got any numbers for us? Do you even know the energy of the gravity collapse was greater than 200 tons of TNT in each tower? Do you even understand physics?

But who needs help debunking Jones and Thermite? Have you read Jones's first paper? It debunks itself. Do you need a copy? He made it up in 2005, and now your truthers, without thinking, use his thermite as some viable theory. Are all truthers incompetent? When you fall for papers like Jones and just believe, what is your deficiency in your thinking which make you fall for lies?

[ZENSMACK89]

They are all junk, that is one reason you will not see them in a real journal. You have chosen junk, you should go to PrisonPlanet, or Infowars, they have junk you will like. I prefer facts, and there are no facts to support the papers you posted. They do not even touch Greenings work, and since you can not support one paragraph, then I assume you have no idea what you think is correct in the list of papers you posted.

I would expect there was a high point in the papers you sent, you had a quick list but seem woefully ignorant of the content. Please point to some serious papers, or please explain why the set you submitted has already been debunked, proved wrong, and do not properly critique Greenings work?

What is the best of the group? Have you really read any of these papers?
"They do not even touch Greenings work"

LOL

Actually one of them starts with Greenings name and the word calculations right in the title. Just what you asked for.

Got anything yet?

[stateofgrace]

I’ll read it but just skimming through it now he’s already got some problems.

“But thermite is an incendiary, a vastly different product to HMX and RDX which are military explosives like TNT that can be used in civilian demolition projects. Thermite is a slow-burning product in comparison, does not explode, and, as far as I can determine, is never used in demolition of buildings.”

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/375503/thermite_pipe_bomb_loud/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M


Oh so thermite makes noise now does it and it as been used to demolish buildings before? When was that?

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh so thermite makes noise now does it and it as been used to demolish buildings before? When was that?
Yeah it's just a noise maker. Why don't you get near some and let it explode. Just bring some earplugs. You'll be ok. I promise.

When

I think Jones claims on 9-11. Didn't you hear about that?

How did like that torch? I've been told they don't exsist either.

[beachnut]

"They do not even touch Greenings work"

LOL

Actually one of them starts with Greenings name and the word calculations right in the title. Just what you asked for.

Got anything yet?
Your papers are trash. Here is a statement not support with facts. In fact this statement verifies Greening's work. This collapse behavior would seem more than a little counter-intuitive without considering additional sources of energy within the Towers, and yet it is an issue that has never been addressed in any form by any investigative releases relating to the Twin Tower collapses. The guy has made a conclusion he does not support with facts, unless you use Greenings work. If one actually read Greenings work there is so much excess energy in the collapse. This paper is also false because no one found any evidence of "additional sources of energy" (they mean explosives). This paper sucks so bad, I gave you a chance to act first but you are too challenged to figure this out.

So we have a statement/conclusion made with no supporting evidence but bad mouthing Greenings paper with no numbers to confirm what they said. Sounds like this guy is doing too much meth and math is too hard to waste time since he knows he is wrong in the first place. In Greenings paper, if you had read it, he has excess energy which he uses to show the idiots who said the concrete was smashed up too much and there was not enough energy from gravity, to show there was more than enough energy to do everything seen on 9/11. BTW – CD uses gravity to do the work, only small charges are used to remove support. CD takes weeks, if not months to place the RDX on the steel columns. If conventional explosives were use to bring down the WTC, without access to the steel columns, the charges would have been too large to hide and the blasts would have been seen and heard.

Even kids can do the math to show Greenings work is viable. This paper does not compute anything. It just talks, and if you do not see that, you are not capable of further understanding. You must think thermite is an explosive, too bad the devices you posted were invented after 9/11. http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/.

[stateofgrace]

Yeah it's just a noise maker. Why don't you get near some and let it explode. Just bring some earplugs. You'll be ok. I promise.

When

I think Jones claims on 9-11. Didn't you hear about that?

How did like that torch? I've been told they don't exsist either.

Oh I see, so it was defiantly thermite they used?

[ZENSMACK89]

Your papers are trash. Here is a statement not support with facts. In fact this statement verifies Greening's work. The guy has made a conclusion he does not support with facts, unless you use Greenings work. If one actually read Greenings work there is so much excess energy in the collapse. This paper is also false because no one found any evidence of "additional sources of energy" (they mean explosives). This paper sucks so bad, I gave you a chance to act first but you are too challenged to figure this out.[/COLOR]

So we have a statement/conclusion made with no supporting evidence but bad mouthing Greenings paper with no numbers to confirm what they said. Sounds like this guy is doing too much meth and math is too hard to waste time since he knows he is wrong in the first place. In Greenings paper, if you had read it, he has excess energy which he uses to show the idiots who said the concrete was smashed up too much and there was not enough energy from gravity, to show there was more than enough energy to do everything seen on 9/11. BTW – CD uses gravity to do the work, only small charges are used to remove support. CD takes weeks, if not months to place the RDX on the steel columns. If conventional explosives were use to bring down the WTC, without access to the steel columns, the charges would have been too large to hide and the blasts would have been seen and heard.

Even kids can do the math to show Greenings work is viable. This paper does not compute anything. It just talks, and if you do not see that, you are not capable of further understanding. You must think thermite is an explosive, too bad the devices you posted were invented after 9/11. http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
It's all been debunked because I say so Whah Whah Whah

LOL

Geez mention thermite around here and people go into fits. Next thing you know Gravy’s going to jump in and star screaming about drywall or some crap. Calm down. Don't have an aneurysm.

Invented after 9-11 huh? More like the patent was after 9-11. Huge difference.

"The guy has made a conclusion he does not support with facts"
You're not talking to yourself are you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Your papers are trash. Here is a statement not support with facts. In fact this statement verifies Greening's work. The guy has made a conclusion he does not support with facts, unless you use Greenings work. If one actually read Greenings work there is so much excess energy in the collapse. This paper is also false because no one found any evidence of "additional sources of energy" (they mean explosives). This paper sucks so bad, I gave you a chance to act first but you are too challenged to figure this out.[/COLOR]

So we have a statement/conclusion made with no supporting evidence but bad mouthing Greenings paper with no numbers to confirm what they said. Sounds like this guy is doing too much meth and math is too hard to waste time since he knows he is wrong in the first place. In Greenings paper, if you had read it, he has excess energy which he uses to show the idiots who said the concrete was smashed up too much and there was not enough energy from gravity, to show there was more than enough energy to do everything seen on 9/11. BTW – CD uses gravity to do the work, only small charges are used to remove support. CD takes weeks, if not months to place the RDX on the steel columns. If conventional explosives were use to bring down the WTC, without access to the steel columns, the charges would have been too large to hide and the blasts would have been seen and heard.

Even kids can do the math to show Greenings work is viable. This paper does not compute anything. It just talks, and if you do not see that, you are not capable of further understanding. You must think thermite is an explosive, too bad the devices you posted were invented after 9/11. http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/.
Well thanks. I'm glad you liked it. lol Now I hate to pile on Greening but heres some more. I think Greening might of even reponded to some of these. Maybe you can find it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html

[beachnut]

BLAH BLAH BLAH
It's all been debunked because I say so Whah Whah Whah

LOL

Geez mention thermite around here and people go into fits. Next thing you know Gravy’s going to jump in and star screaming about drywall or some crap. Calm down. Don't have an aneurysm.

Invented after 9-11 huh? More like the patent was after 9-11. Huge difference.

"The guy has made a conclusion he does not support with facts"
You're not talking to yourself are you?
Show me how the devices were used and why no one found any in the debris of the WTC? No one found any explosives or thermite cutting devices. I love thermite, it shows Jones is full of junk. He wrote his first thermite paper in 2005, long after no explosives were seen or found at the WTC.

I want to see how they were used in your fantasy world. Do a paper.

Please present the portions of the papers you think are correct. Back to the pile of BS. If you can not present support for the papers you presented, I have to consider them bogus. Any good stuff you think is correct? What do you think about a conclusion of explosives without support? I think that kind of puts the lid on that paper. NEXT

Tell me why the paper I looked at is any good for anything. Remember they used no numbers to show Greening wrong, they just did the talk thing. They did say 80 percent to 90 percent of the building fell out side the 1 acre site, but only waved there hands and looked at photos to support that. They never mentioned the energy of collapse. Why?

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/ (http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/) I can not find anything in this paper to support your position, I need some help from you to bring me around, please help.

[Corsair 115]

How would there be a distinct sound of anything in the middle of a skyscaper collapsing?Demolition charges are LOUD. No, make that LOUD.

If such charges were used to initiate the collapse of the WTC towers, everybody would have heard them and every video camera in the area would have clearly recorded such sounds.

No videos have such sounds on their audio.

Your explanation then as to why no such sounds were recorded if you believe that demolition charges of some sort brought down the WTC towers?

[nicepants]

oops

[NYCEMT86]

Yeah it's just a noise maker. Why don't you get near some and let it explode. Just bring some earplugs. You'll be ok. I promise.

When

I think Jones claims on 9-11. Didn't you hear about that?

How did like that torch? I've been told they don't exsist either.

Wow,

I go to work for 10 hours and 3 more pages?


Anyways...


Tell me Zen,

Where are the sounds of explosions?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LaVR35B3VIc


Real loud right?

[beachnut]

Well thanks. I'm glad you liked it. lol Now I hate to pile on Greening but heres some more. I think Greening might of even reponded to some of these. Maybe you can find it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.htmlGordon Ross.

Now you have fallen into the woo pit. Ross says that Global collapse is short about 10 percent of the energy to begin. Not a good paper to cite. As seen on 9/11, global collapse did happen. Oops, Ross was wrong before he wrote his paper. If you check his numbers, even the most conservative estimates puts the energy on the other side of not enough. So Ross predicts, after proven wrong on 9/11, that there is not enough energy for global collapse. As I said, if you look at his numbers he is wrong and there is more the 10 or 20 percent more energy available to begin global collapse. Ross made a mistake, and that error in turn makes the previous paper http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/ (http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/) wrong too. Figure it out master engineer, super zen scientist. Or are you just a follower of the truth movement. Do you have more credential than being a inforwar type of guy?

Numbers are needed to show Ross wrong, why are you unable, unprepared, unaware of how to do the simple math to show your own presented papers are bogus. I still think Ross's paper is funny, thinking about Ross and how much credibility he lost when he went truther. Hey his paper is a main stay of the journal of woo. Good choice. I think you are batting 0.

[CHF]

Demolition charges are LOUD. No, make that LOUD.

Hence the thermite theory.

[pomeroo]

Well thanks. I'm glad you liked it. lol Now I hate to pile on Greening but heres some more. I think Greening might of even reponded to some of these. Maybe you can find it.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html


You come to all of this with, let us say, a mind unencumbered by knowledge. Do you know how totally Dr. Greening has refuted Ross. Have you seen the job Mackey did on Ross?

You can't discover America--Columbus already did it.

[nicepants]

Just pointing out he revised his statement from “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

no matter how

So if a 15 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated in the lobby of the building, there would still be "little likelihood of a collapse?"

I think his statement needs to be taken with a grain of salt. no building will resist collapse in EVERY CASE.

[Corsair 115]

So if a 15 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated in the lobby of the building, there would still be "little likelihood of a collapse?"If a 15 megaton nuclear bomb went off, I think the issue of the building collapsing or not as a result is fairly moot. :D

[ZENSMACK89]

Wow,

I go to work for 10 hours and 3 more pages?


Anyways...


Tell me Zen,

Where are the sounds of explosions?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LaVR35B3VIc


Real loud right?
Right here.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/375503...ipe_bomb_loud/

It depends on how it is used which would answer Cosairs question.

I never claimed Thermate was definitely used I am only showing that the article posted that purports to Debunk thermite is flawed. There are Thermite/Thermate torches which don't make much noise at all and there are devices made with it that explode and make very loud noises. This is in response to people who claim thermite can't be used in such a manner. That's wrong.

[ZENSMACK89]

You come to all of this with, let us say, a mind unencumbered by knowledge. Do you know how totally Dr. Greening has refuted Ross. Have you seen the job Mackey did on Ross?

You can't discover America--Columbus already did it.
There you go again. No I don't know. Show me where.

[ZENSMACK89]

Gordon Ross.

Now you have fallen into the woo pit. Ross says that Global collapse is short about 10 percent of the energy to begin. Not a good paper to cite. As seen on 9/11, global collapse did happen. Oops, Ross was wrong before he wrote his paper. If you check his numbers, even the most conservative estimates puts the energy on the other side of not enough. So Ross predicts, after proven wrong on 9/11, that there is not enough energy for global collapse. As I said, if you look at his numbers he is wrong and there is more the 10 or 20 percent more energy available to begin global collapse. Ross made a mistake, and that error in turn makes the previous paper http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/ (http://www.studyof911.com/articles/BsB092306/) wrong too. Figure it out master engineer, super zen scientist. Or are you just a follower of the truth movement. Do you have more credential than being a inforwar type of guy?

Numbers are needed to show Ross wrong, why are you unable, unprepared, unaware of how to do the simple math to show your own presented papers are bogus. I still think Ross's paper is funny, thinking about Ross and how much credibility he lost when he went truther. Hey his paper is a main stay of the journal of woo. Good choice. I think you are batting 0.
Why would I show the needed numbers that prove Ross wrong. That's for you to do. Can you?

"As I said, if you look at his numbers he is wrong.."

I hear you. Now where? Just because the building collapsed doesn't mean it had enough energy on it's own to do so at the speed and the manner it did. You do understand this don't you? Wasn't everyone on here the other day throwing hissy over my plane only statement?

Numbers are needed to show Ross wrong, why are you unable, unprepared, unaware of how to do the simple math to show Ross is bogus as you claim?

[ZENSMACK89]

So if a 15 megaton nuclear weapon was detonated in the lobby of the building, there would still be "little likelihood of a collapse?"

I think his statement needs to be taken with a grain of salt. no building will resist collapse in EVERY CASE.
That's right. That's why he revised it.

[ZENSMACK89]

You come to all of this with, let us say, a mind unencumbered by knowledge. Do you know how totally Dr. Greening has refuted Ross. Have you seen the job Mackey did on Ross?

You can't discover America--Columbus already did it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

To whom it may concern
Dr. Frank R. Greening

Reply to Dr. Greening (See also How the Towers were Demolished)
Gordon Ross, ME

[ZENSMACK89]

Demolition charges are LOUD. No, make that LOUD.

If such charges were used to initiate the collapse of the WTC towers, everybody would have heard them and every video camera in the area would have clearly recorded such sounds.

No videos have such sounds on their audio.

Your explanation then as to why no such sounds were recorded if you believe that demolition charges of some sort brought down the WTC towers?
Are you claiming no one heard any explosions? Here's just a few accounts.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

YouTube - Explosions Heard at WTC


Now I realize some of this could be attributed to the building collapses or the plane crashes themselves or even random building items popping or exploding in a fire but certainly not all of it. Why do the fire fighters seemed so surprised and not sure of what's going on if it's just noises heard in normal fires which they are experienced with? Where a lot of these noises even from the impact zone? Where has it been proven what ALL these explosions heard were or even how anybody could know without investigating it? In other words how to you dismiss it as fact it didn't exsist?

[beachnut]

Why would I show the needed numbers that prove Ross wrong. That's for you to do. Can you?

"As I said, if you look at his numbers he is wrong.."

I hear you. Now where? Just because the building collapsed doesn't mean it had enough energy on it's own to do so at the speed and the manner it did. You do understand this don't you? Wasn't everyone on here the other day throwing hissy over my plane only statement?

Numbers are needed to show Ross wrong, why are you unable, unprepared, unaware of how to do the simple math to show Ross is bogus as you claim?
I doubt if you will take my work as proof. I have done the work and Ross is wrong. Which means Ross predicts Global collapse due to the fact he made an error. Ross says he is short 390MJ of energy for collapse to start. He is trying to say it would stop. Do you ZenSmack89 know what 390MJ is? It is the energy Ross says is missing. You know how big 390,000,000 joules is. Like 186 pounds of TNT. Gee the aircraft impacts were 2200 pounds of TNT energy. Ross says the top floors falling are only missing 186 pounds of TNT energy. I found with simple errors he made he was wrong by some 20 percent, and there was a 410,000,000 joules more energy availible to start global collaspe. I was being very conservative and see there were more errors but I think others have shown it better.

Plus another engineer who post here, found Ross wrong by 1389MJ, so there is about 1000MJ extra energy to begin global collapse. http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) So this work shows there is about the energy of a 500 pound bomb (500 pounds of TNT = 1,000,000,000 joules) extra to start global collapse. You see it is energy. I am not sure if you understand this, but you can get some help if you want to see why there are only 0.000067 percent of all engineers in the 9/11 truth movement.

There are over more engineers here who agree with this. My napkin scratching quickly found an error, http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) shows the work done by another engineer with Ross's work and the error. There are more examples of critiquiing Ross's work and proving it in error. Why not comment on them with some actual critiques?

Your turn, now you show why Ross's work is correct with numbers. Show me why http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) this is right or wrong. Please take your time to come up with some numbers and the critique of http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html).

It is amusing 9/11 truth follower who do not trust the government, trust an engineer who makes mistakes that are easy for other engineers to see wrong. Even Dr Greening can show you the errors! http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf)

So where are your numbers?

[ZENSMACK89]

I doubt if you will take my work as proof. I have done the work and Ross is wrong. Which means Ross predicts Global collapse due to the fact he made an error. Ross says he is short 390MJ of energy for collapse to start. He is trying to say it would stop. Do you ZenSmack89 know what 390MJ is? It is the energy Ross says is missing. You know how big 390,000,000 joules is. Like 186 pounds of TNT. Gee the aircraft impacts were 2200 pounds of TNT energy. Ross says the top floors falling are only missing 186 pounds of TNT energy. I found with simple errors he made he was wrong by some 20 percent, and there was a 410,000,000 joules more energy availible to start global collaspe. I was being very conservative and see there were more errors but I think others have shown it better.

Plus another engineer who post here, found Ross wrong by 1389MJ, so there is about 1000MJ extra energy to begin global collapse. http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) So this work shows there is about the energy of a 500 pound bomb (500 pounds of TNT = 1,000,000,000 joules) extra to start global collapse. You see it is energy. I am not sure if you understand this, but you can get some help if you want to see why there are only 0.000067 percent of all engineers in the 9/11 truth movement.

There are over more engineers here who agree with this. My napkin scratching quickly found an error, http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) shows the work done by another engineer with Ross's work and the error. There are more examples of critiquiing Ross's work and proving it in error. Why not comment on them with some actual critiques?

Your turn, now you show why Ross's work is correct with numbers. Show me why http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html) this is right or wrong. Please take your time to come up with some numbers and the critique of http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html).

It is amusing 9/11 truth follower who do not trust the government, trust an engineer who makes mistakes that are easy for other engineers to see wrong. Even Dr Greening can show you the errors! http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf)

So where are your numbers?
I don't see any credentials for the first two at Newton Bit. Forgive me if I'm missing something. Are they anonomous. Are they the same person. And why are you linking the same article by Greening that I gave you. It's the same one you just left out the reply from Ross.

"I doubt if you will take my work as proof."

How could I when its's not? I think you know, that's why you started your reply with that sentence. Conscience?

[beachnut]

I don't see any credentials for the first two at Newton Bit. Forgive me if I'm missing something. Are they anonomous. Are they the same person. And why are you linking the same article by Greening that I gave you. It's the same one you just left out the reply from Ross.

"I doubt if you will take my work as proof."

How could I when its's not? I think you know, that's why you started your reply with that sentence. Conscience?
I have been an engineer for 33 years, I have a masters degree, MSEE. I am also a pilot for 34 years, if you are a US citizen and you or your parents paid taxes in 1975, I want to thank you for the million dollar training you provided; it was the best in the world. The other web site is an engineer too. I would say, over 100 years of engineering is at your posting pleasure.

How did I know you would not have numbers or facts?

Greening debunks Ross, Newtons Bits debunks Ross, I debunk Ross. It seem numbers do not help you, but your lack of numbers and facts also debunks Ross. You and Ross go ahead and stay in the building Ross says will stand, good idea.

[CHF]

Are you claiming no one heard any explosions?

No, just that no one heard any demolition explosions.

They should appear on every audio/video recording from 9/11, Zen.

Yes, they're that loud.

[ZENSMACK89]

I have been an engineer for 33 years, I have a masters degree, MSEE. I am also a pilot for 34 years, if you are a US citizen and you or your parents paid taxes in 1975, I want to thank you for the million dollar training you provided; it was the best in the world. The other web site is an engineer too. I would say, over 100 years of engineering is at your posting pleasure.

How did I know you would not have numbers or facts?

Greening debunks Ross, Newtons Bits debunks Ross, I debunk Ross. It seem numbers do not help you, but your lack of numbers and facts also debunks Ross. You and Ross go ahead and stay in the building Ross says will stand, good idea.
I still don't know who Newton bits is. I still don't know who you are nor do I want to. Don’t worry about what I know I can say I’m anybody just the same as you. Prove me or my source wrong in the same terms I present them in. It shouldn’t be hard for a genius like you.

Ross debunked Greening, Greening replied, then Ross debunked Greening further, and I haven't seen any reply back to Ross from Greening. Why is that? Did I miss something? Is Greening still working on it? The loss of mass that is.

Let me ask you something. This napkin scratching new flaw you claim to have found in Ross's calculations with your scary 33 year old million dollar training did Greening point out this flaw? Why not? Did he miss it? Do you have an independent consensus with Greening or a different view on Ross? If it’s the same did you come to it independently? If it’s different why is it different? How did you come up with something by just napkin scratching that your hero Mr Greening missed? What else has he missed?

Now you are going off with your babble about kinetic energy of the falling mass and whether or not the energy calculations were correct without addressing Greenings flaw of not accounting for loss of mass all the way down.

Now this was the end of Ross's last reply even after assuming for argument sake that Greening was right in his last response to Ross. It full of numbers and calculations so you should like it. Did you read it because you are claiming to debunk Ross but I don’t really see how you address it? Why don’t you school me with your scary knowledge and read it and tell me in layman terms how Ross is wrong. Was that you who referred to me as a “real dumb guy”? Ok walk me through it big mouth. Here is Ross go back and read the whole thing because you either didn’t read it or you are ignoring it or you don’t understand it. Debunk it in the same logical terms and language he addresses Greening’s flawed work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

Here’s the summary…

“By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early stage.

Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr. Greening has provided in reference to the pulverization of the concrete. Combining this with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical Minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete pulverization. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that would be present due to the pulverization and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought to the steel superstructures.”

PS Why have you or no one else touched the NIST quotes I posted?

[ZENSMACK89]

No, just that no one heard any demolition explosions.

They should appear on every audio/video recording from 9/11, Zen.

Yes, they're that loud.
Maybe you have your hands on your ears. You know... like whenever anyone tries to point out facts about 9-11 to you? It might also help if you stop screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH

[pomeroo]

Maybe you have your hands on your ears. You know... like whenever anyone tries to point out facts about 9-11 to you? It might also help if you stop screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH


What would you know about 9/11 facts? You don't have any.

[funk de fino]

Maybe you have your hands on your ears. You know... like whenever anyone tries to point out facts about 9-11 to you? It might also help if you stop screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH

Translated = I have no idea why there are no large detonation noises in any videos and i will ignore further questions on this subject

[beachnut]

Now you are going off with your babble about kinetic energy of the falling mass and whether or not the energy calculations were correct without addressing Greenings flaw of not accounting for loss of mass all the way down.
Hey, you win. The numbers you presented have me stumped. I am unable to ace your detailed calculations. After being an engineer for 33 years I have never seen such great calculations showing Ross's work so clearly as you have shown me. You must of gone to GA Tech, they always are sharp engineers.

Thanks again for sending me to UPT, it was a very good year.

I am sorry I questioned your ability to do the math and physics to put me in my place. I only have a masters degree in engineering and it seems your training has got me beat at these complicated issues of 9/11. I have to know what school produced such a great scholar as yourself who has quickly supplied the numbers and calculation to put this issue to bed.

I am in awe of your ability to point out the relevant numbers and calculations to make it so clear where 9/11 truth stands on this serious topic.

Thank you

[tsig]

Maybe you have your hands on your ears. You know... like whenever anyone tries to point out facts about 9-11 to you? It might also help if you stop screaming NAH NAH NAH NAH

Now you are defaming my religion.

Hands and ears go together.

Then you scream!

NAH NAH NAH NAIN.

See the difference!!!

It willbring you wealth

[mjd1982]

Excellent. You're one of the first conspiracists to do so.

Please provide me with the testimony of any first responder who state they knew that WTC 7 was going to be blown up. These testimonies can be from before, during, or after 9/11.

Do it or shut your mouth.
I have provided you with several, and I have done this seven times now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

So I will now ask you, and the rest of the herd, for the 8th time, to address the testimonies in the video. Do it, or shut your mouth.

I should actually take back my comment about the sound of silence- there is the pretty clear sound of the OTer world crashing down upon all of you. How tragic.

[calebprime]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

So I will now ask you, and the rest of the herd, for the 8th time, to address the testimonies in the video. Do it, or shut your mouth.



Is this the best case? Just smoke and sound and fury?

Jowenko is shown a clip with no explanation. When he's told that it was seven hours after WTC 1 & 2, he begins to see how impossible controlled demo is--he first says "They must have worked really hard''--or words to that effect--and then they cut away from the interview. I recall that he has changed his mind. For one thing, he knows that there wasn't time.

There's no distinct sequence of explosions or puffs of smoke like one hears and sees in controlled demolition.

The one firefighter interviewed says he heard an explosion. I'm sure he did. As others have pointed out, the word is ambiguous. He heard the massive roar of multiple stories collapsing. He was, as he said "a deer in the headlights'--in a panic situation.

Despite the slanted way that video is edited, it doesn't present much of a case that building 7 came down from controlled demolition.

It even has the canard about no steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire.

Surely, there's something more compelling than this?

[ZENSMACK89]

Is this the best case? Just smoke and sound and fury?

Jowenko is shown a clip with no explanation. When he's told that it was seven hours after WTC 1 & 2, he begins to see how impossible controlled demo is--he first says "They must have worked really hard''--or words to that effect--and then they cut away from the interview. I recall that he has changed his mind. For one thing, he knows that there wasn't time.

There's no distinct sequence of explosions or puffs of smoke like one hears and sees and in controlled demolition.

The one firefighter interviewed says he heard an explosion. I'm sure he did. As others have pointed out, the word is ambiguous. He heard the massive roar of multiple stories collapsing. He was, as he said "a deer in the headlights'--in a panic situation.

Despite the slanted way that video is edited, it doesn't present much of a case that building 7 came down from controlled demolition.

It even has the canard about no steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire.

Surely, there's something more compelling than this?
Follow up phone interview with Jowenko where he confirms his opinion on WTC7 after further review of the collapse.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

[ZENSMACK89]

Hey, you win. The numbers you presented have me stumped. I am unable to ace your detailed calculations. After being an engineer for 33 years I have never seen such great calculations showing Ross's work so clearly as you have shown me. You must of gone to GA Tech, they always are sharp engineers.

Thanks again for sending me to UPT, it was a very good year.

I am sorry I questioned your ability to do the math and physics to put me in my place. I only have a masters degree in engineering and it seems your training has got me beat at these complicated issues of 9/11. I have to know what school produced such a great scholar as yourself who has quickly supplied the numbers and calculation to put this issue to bed.

I am in awe of your ability to point out the relevant numbers and calculations to make it so clear where 9/11 truth stands on this serious topic.

Thank you
You're welcome.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, we have heard that before...I do not believe he reviewed the WTC interim report. If he did, and still feels it was a CD, than he is woo...simple.

TAM:)

[DGM]

I have provided you with several, and I have done this seven times now.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&q=wtc7+smoking+gun

So I will now ask you, and the rest of the herd, for the 8th time, to address the testimonies in the video. Do it, or shut your mouth.

I should actually take back my comment about the sound of silence- there is the pretty clear sound of the OTer world crashing down upon all of you. How tragic.
And for the 8th time your denial is noted.

[calebprime]

Follow up phone interview with Jowenko where he confirms his opinion on WTC7 after further review of the collapse.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

Ok. You've convinced me that Jowenko believes that the building could not have come down from fire, alone. Now, what did he know about how the building was damaged? What does he believe happened?

In considering the balance of evidence on WTC 7, is there something more substantial?

Such as: physical evidence of remnants of explosives? Testimony from people who set up the explosives?

Again, Silverstein's sound bite doesn't make sense as a confession of insurance fraud or of controlled demolition.

[Regnad Kcin]

I should actually take back my comment about the sound of silence- there is the pretty clear sound of the OTer world crashing down upon all of you. How tragic.Your bowel truth movement, consisting of a relative handful of impotent little agenda-driven intellectual lightweights, has nothing. No thing. Frauds, liars, and opportunistic fanatics all, grouped together under the banner of dumb. The sad yet amusing flailing or arms and stamping of feet you exhibit will not alter by even one degree the course of history.

Oh well.

[ZENSMACK89]

Ok. You've convinced me that Jowenko believes that the building could not have come down from fire, alone. Now, what did he know about how the building was damaged? What does he believe happened?

In considering the balance of evidence on WTC 7, is there something more substantial?

Such as: physical evidence of remnants of explosives? Testimony from people who set up the explosives?

Again, Silverstein's sound bite doesn't make sense as a confession of insurance fraud or of controlled demolition.
Is there something more substantial as far as Jowenko goes? I don't know. Apparently on WTC7 he comes down on the side of truthers based on the video and I believe plans of the building someone provided him with. He has claimed it once and then followed up and confirmed his opinion in the telephone interview.

On the towers he comes down on the official version side primarily because it goes the opposite direction of a traditional controlled demolition and he also couldn't fathom anyone having the time to wire the building.

[ZENSMACK89]

Your bowel truth movement, consisting of a relative handful of impotent little agenda-driven intellectual lightweights, has nothing. No thing. Frauds, liars, and opportunistic fanatics all, grouped together under the banner of dumb. The sad yet amusing flailing or arms and stamping of feet you exhibit will not alter by even one degree the course of history.

Oh well.
Yes right, right.

Unlike the Law abiding representatives of truth justice and the American way currently occupying the present Administration and infiltrating our Government agencies led by the intellectual heavyweight George Dubya.

Talk about opportunistic?

They used the deaths of 3000 Americans to fuel their twisted imperialistic agenda while filling their pockets with the spoils all on the backs of American casualties, dead Iraqi's, and tax payer money dulled out to their corporate friends.

History will not be kind.

[DavidJames]

History will not be kind.That may very well be true, but it will be because of facts and evidence, not the agenda driven personal biases or rumors or self proclaimed coincidences that make up the foundation of the CTists. (not to mention the lies, cherry picked facts and distorted logic)

[GlennB]

Is there something more substantial as far as Jowenko goes? I don't know. Apparently on WTC7 he comes down on the side of truthers based on the video and I believe plans of the building someone provided him with. He has claimed it once and then followed up and confirmed his opinion in the telephone interview.

On the towers he comes down on the official version side primarily because it goes the opposite direction of a traditional controlled demolition and he also couldn't fathom anyone having the time to wire the building.

1. We don't know which video he was shown. Christoper7 claims it was the usual one taken from low-down on the NE of WTC7. The one that doesn't show the collapse of the E Penthouse 7 seconds earlier. I tend to agree with this as it's the one CTists love above all others.

2. The interviewer had a building groundplan and mentioned "these 12", referring to core columns. There were 24.

3. The interviewer flat lied about how neat the debris pile was ("you could walk right round it")

4. The phone call is unattributable. Could have been any idiot that sounded vaguely like Jowenko. Also I find it strange that J answered the phone himself - was this his home number? he discussed WTC7, at home, with a total stranger? - but that's just my opinion.

The Jowenko testimony wouldn't even make it as far as a courtroom, for pure fear of being laughed at.

[mjd1982]

LMAO.

Too funny. I will add you to the prize sheep collection.

Anyway, I will ask again for the 10th time now. Will somebody please address the 1st responder testimonies in the vid I have kindly supplied.

Tell you what, just to make this even more hilarious than it already is, let's do it one at a time. Let's start with Indira Singh. She states, categorically, that they were told they had to get away from the building because it was about to be "taken down".

Expliquez s'il vous plait.

All CTers and lurkers, get ready to watch some well rehearsed OT mass evasion procedure!

[ZENSMACK89]

1. We don't know which video he was shown. Christoper7 claims it was the usual one taken from low-down on the NE of WTC7. The one that doesn't show the collapse of the E Penthouse 7 seconds earlier. I tend to agree with this as it's the one CTists love above all others.

2. The interviewer had a building groundplan and mentioned "these 12", referring to core columns. There were 24.

3. The interviewer flat lied about how neat the debris pile was ("you could walk right round it")

4. The phone call is unattributable. Could have been any idiot that sounded vaguely like Jowenko. Also I find it strange that J answered the phone himself - was this his home number? he discussed WTC7, at home, with a total stranger? - but that's just my opinion.

The Jowenko testimony wouldn't even make it as far as a courtroom, for pure fear of being laughed at.
Which video was Jowenko shown on any of the building and how much? What’s it matter? I never claimed Jowenko opinion was fact in any WTC7 or the towers I was just replying to someone’s comment on it. It’s not true that he revised his opinion of WTC7. That’s all.

Some however seem to want and throw his name out to support their own beliefs and dismiss his opinions as far as the other building(s) is concerned. Is that what you're doing? It no surprise. The official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side. You just have to ignore the counter evidence. Jowenko is a prime example.

[GlennB]

Which video was Jowenko shown on any of the building and how much? What’s it matter? I never claimed Jowenko opinion was fact in any WTC7 or the towers I was just replying to someone’s comment on it. It’s not true that he revised his opinion of WTC7. That’s all.

Some however seem to want and throw his name out to support their own beliefs and dismiss his opinions as far as the other building(s) is concerned. Is that what you're doing? It no surprise. The official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side. You just have to ignore the counter evidence. Jowenko is a prime example.

1. I made a mistake - the "classic" WTC7 video is from the NW

2. I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to translate it into English?

[NYCEMT86]

Zen,

Do you think the Silverstein "pull it" quote means he confessed to demolishing WTC 7? I remember on YouTube you were agreeing with that. Just want to know if that is your stance and changed.

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen,

Do you think the Silverstein "pull it" quote means he confessed to demolishing WTC 7? I remember on YouTube you were agreeing with that. Just want to know if that is your stance and changed.
I haven't changed my opinion of Silversteins statement in conjunction with the way WTC7 came down along with the fact that many seemed to know it was coming down as suspicious.

I would add though that I don't particularly think the word "pull" is as suspicious as the word “it" in his statement. I would think that if he was referring to firefighters as he later claimed he would have used the word "them".

I'm really not sure how important any of it is at this point. He said it and he claims what he meant and I don't see anything that's going to change that so why dwell on it when there are other things that can be looked at? It's not like if he was lying he's ever going to come clean about it now.

[ZENSMACK89]

1. I made a mistake - the "classic" WTC7 video is from the NW

2. I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to translate it into English?
I'm just saying that both sides of the 9-11 issue seem to use Jowenko to support their claims. I personally don't think he ever received enough information about any of the buildings he's weighed in on to make a complete assessment.

[CHF]

The official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side. You just have to ignore the counter evidence. Jowenko is a prime example.

So you have one demolition pro who hasn't written a paper and is no longer speaking about the issue.

Meanwhile, from the other side....

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

[ZENSMACK89]

So you have one demolition pro who hasn't written a paper and is no longer speaking about the issue.

Meanwhile, from the other side....

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf
Yes I've seen this. In fact an arm of the State department called the "counter misinformation team" uses this paper as part their official version campaign strategy.

Looks like you’ve been recruited. Congratulations.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html.

[Revolutionary91]

So you have one demolition pro who hasn't written a paper and is no longer speaking about the issue.

Meanwhile, from the other side....

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf


What do you mean he is no longer speaking? He happily tells anyone who asks that 7 was a demolition.

Is the writer of your paper connected to any of the companies that were at ground zero that day?

[nicepants]

LMAO.

Too funny. I will add you to the prize sheep collection.

Anyway, I will ask again for the 10th time now. Will somebody please address the 1st responder testimonies in the vid I have kindly supplied.

Tell you what, just to make this even more hilarious than it already is, let's do it one at a time. Let's start with Indira Singh. She states, categorically, that they were told they had to get away from the building because it was about to be "taken down".


She states:

"Because we were told building 7 was about to come down or being brought down"

Then later says she was told by the fire department "we're going to have to bring it down"

These aren't completely congruent.

Additionally, who from the NYFD told her that they were "bringing it down"?

[CHF]

Yes I've seen this. In fact an arm of the State department called the "counter misinformation team" uses this paper as part their official version campaign strategy.

And you're about to prove it wrong, point-by-point.

Right?

[leftysergeant]

What do you mean he is no longer speaking? He happily tells anyone who asks that 7 was a demolition.

So, has Jowenko ever told anyone how he thought it could have been done? He was utterly incredulous when informed that the fires had not been extinguished when the building fell. He concluded, after being informed of this fact : "Then I can't explain this."

In the video clips of the interview, he was shown pictures, but they were mostly of the layout of the site. I did not see anyone showing him pictures of the original damage to the building or of the fires. He was probably not shown the pictures of the debris actually striking the building. If he wishes us to believe that it was CD, he needs to come out publicly and tell us how it might have been accomplished.

Going into twoofer mode: "He knows his career is toast if he puts forth an explanation that doesn't hold water."

Is the writer of your paper connected to any of the companies that were at ground zero that day?

Yes. Didn't you read it?

So like a twoofer.

[CHF]

What do you mean he is no longer speaking? He happily tells anyone who asks that 7 was a demolition.

I've seen his Dutch TV interview and he did a phone interview with Pomeroo.

Got anything else? Some written work, preferably.

Is the writer of your paper connected to any of the companies that were at ground zero that day?

Yes, his company was at GZ during and after 9/11. Which I presume in your mind means he blew up the buildings?

[Revolutionary91]

I've seen his Dutch TV interview and he did a phone interview with Pomeroo.

Got anything else? Some written work, preferably.



Yes, his company was at GZ during and after 9/11. Which I presume in your mind means he blew up the buildings?

Well that kinda rules him out as a source. Jowenko has no conflicts of interest whatsoever.

You are accepting a paper from a man whose company was at the scene at the time the building collapsed! incredible.

[ZENSMACK89]

And you're about to prove it wrong, point-by-point.

Right?
As I stated earlier the official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

[CHF]

Well that kinda rules him out as a source. Jowenko has no conflicts of interest whatsoever.

Yet he's still wrong about the towers. :rolleyes:

You are accepting a paper from a man whose company was at the scene at the time the building collapsed! incredible.

His conflict of interest should obviously produce deeply flawed work then, correct? Show me where his paper gets it wrong. Or better yet, show the Protec paper to a demolition company without a conflict of interest and see what they say.

Rev, you've show us a big part of why twoofers hate qualified people so much. The best qualified companies and engineers will usually get the best government contracts. Why wouldn't they? You expect the USG to hire people like Richard Gage or Steven Jones instead?

[R.Mackey]

His conflict of interest should obviously produce deeply flawed work then, correct? Show me where his paper gets it wrong. Or better yet, show the Protec paper to a demolition company without a conflict of interest and see what they say.

Hmm, an ordinary person would think that, because they were there when it happened, they might know more about it than experts who weren't...

Dark and disturbing, this Truther logic is.

[NYCEMT86]

I haven't changed my opinion of Silversteins statement in conjunction with the way WTC7 came down along with the fact that many seemed to know it was coming down as suspicious.

I would add though that I don't particularly think the word "pull" is as suspicious as the word “it" in his statement. I would think that if he was referring to firefighters as he later claimed he would have used the word "them".

I'm really not sure how important any of it is at this point. He said it and he claims what he meant and I don't see anything that's going to change that so why dwell on it when there are other things that can be looked at? It's not like if he was lying he's ever going to come clean about it now.


"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


Lets break this down.



"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander..."

Who was the FDNY Commander?

Chief Nigro, who took over the operations after Chief Ganci was killed.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire.."

Why couldn't they contain the fire?

Water pressure was low due to broken water mains and open hydrants prior to the collapse of the towers.

Now I will get into this even more, a hydrant on a 20 inch main is considered a Class AA hydrant, meaning it can supply 1,500+ GPM now that is IF that hydrant is the only one open. If you have two hydrants are open on the same main the residual pressure drops dramatically, if you have 3 open, it drops even more. So on and so forth.

If the main is broken, well than you are SOL.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life..."

No disputing that (Not saying you would have just saying it as a point)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it...'"

You brought up "it" is suspicious. Why didn't he say "them"?

He could have used "them", or he was most likely talking about the operation of trying to save the building. Especially after the information received from Chief Nigro.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Whats the key phrase in that whole sentence?

they made that decision to pull

Who is they?

Of course its the FDNY



"We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then." - Chief Hayden



This quote is very important because most CTs believe this is Larry Silverstein's confession to Controlled Demolition of WTC 7. Alex Jones felt that this quote condemned not only Larry Silverstein, but the FDNY as well.

"People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html)

I don't make this stuff up...but Alex Jones does

[Revolutionary91]

Hmm, an ordinary person would think that, because they were there when it happened, they might know more about it than experts who weren't...

Dark and disturbing, this Truther logic is.

Why exactly were demolition companys called to building 7? was it just to watch?

[CHF]

As I stated earlier the official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

You counter a demolition pro with a software engineer? How pathetic.

We get a taste of Hoffman's idiocy on point #1 which he basically concedes the point but insists that because the towers were a non-conventional demolition a normal demolition pro couldn't spot it like a software engineer apparently can.

Since the Towers' demolitions had to start from around the crash zones, the planners would not have been able to exploit the vast majority of each Tower's mass to aid the destruction.Yeah, the collapses was only allowed to use a 120,000 ton mass in the south tower and a 50,000 ton mass in the north tower. That, according to Hofmann, isn't enough to plow through the building as we saw.

Thus they would have had to use much greater quantities of explosives than are typical in demolitions, exploding the Towers rather than imploding them.Surely any video would have picked up the sound of those charges going off...right?

After all, according to Hoffman we're talking more explosives that, say, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ).

I love it when twoofer "rebuttals" only serve to complicate things for themselves further. :D

[The Doc]

You are accepting a paper from a man whose company was at the scene at the time the building collapsed! incredible.

Argument Ad Hominem

You should address the contents of the paper instead of who wrote it.

[PhantomWolf]

Why exactly were demolition companys called to building 7? was it just to watch?

They weren't called to WTC 7 at all. They crews of a number of construction/destruction teams were working in varioius places about NYC that day, just as they are every day. After the Towers collapsed they headed to Ground Zero to start helping out in the search and resuce of any survivors, and why not, since they have expertise with cleaning up buildings after they come down, they had a lot of expertise that would have been very useful in the searching the pile. As such they just went without anyone asking, the same as the other thousands of volunteers who worked the pile throughout the days that followed. Because they arrived there before 5pm, they happened to be there when Building 7 came down.

[mjd1982]

She states:

"Because we were told building 7 was about to come down or being brought down"

Then later says she was told by the fire department "we're going to have to bring it down"

These aren't completely congruent.

Additionally, who from the NYFD told her that they were "bringing it down"?
Good. So you agree that she was told 7 was going to be brought down.

I trust you will now stop posting OT garbage on this board.

For the rest of you, I am going to ask for the 11th time now, address the testimony.

[gumboot]

Tell you what, just to make this even more hilarious than it already is, let's do it one at a time. Let's start with Indira Singh. She states, categorically, that they were told they had to get away from the building because it was about to be "taken down".



Is English Indira Singh's first language?

-Gumboot

[mjd1982]

Is English Indira Singh's first language?

-Gumboot
LMFAO

Now we're getting desperate!

But, for the record, it would appear to be such, yes. Though it may give you nightmares, watch the video please.

[DGM]

LMAO.

Too funny. I will add you to the prize sheep collection.

Anyway, I will ask again for the 10th time now. Will somebody please address the 1st responder testimonies in the vid I have kindly supplied.

Tell you what, just to make this even more hilarious than it already is, let's do it one at a time. Let's start with Indira Singh. She states, categorically, that they were told they had to get away from the building because it was about to be "taken down".

Expliquez s'il vous plait.

All CTers and lurkers, get ready to watch some well rehearsed OT mass evasion procedure!
In post #671 you claimed it was the 8th time you asked. the next time you posted was this and said 10. This is not possible because people can't make mistakes.
So the eyewitnesses have to be correct like you?

[CHF]

mjd1982,

if you believe those people think WTC7 was a demolition your next step would be to contact them to find out

a) how they heard about WTC7 being "brought down"
b) whether they still think it was a demolition

You might also want to look into why the charges were so quiet.

Oh and ask the FDNY about their demolition practices.

Until you take the time to look into those quotes yourself to see if they really mean what you think they mean, I see no reason why we should do the work for you.

[nicepants]

Good. So you agree that she was told 7 was going to be brought down.

No.
She claims she was told:

"building 7 was about to come down or being brought down"

Then later says she was told by the fire department "we're going to have to bring it down".

This does not prove that she was told the building was going to be "brought down", only that she claims such. Based on this, we cannot automatically conclude that's exactly what she was told, because we would be assuming that she did not misunderstand or misinterpret what she was told, and that she remembered it word-for-word.

The logical way to verify this would be to ask the individual who allegedly made this statement to her. Let me know when you have done that.

ETA: In case that wasn't clear enough... she can claim she was told anything. That doesn't mean she's correct.

[ZENSMACK89]

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."


Lets break this down.



"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander..."

Who was the FDNY Commander?

Chief Nigro, who took over the operations after Chief Ganci was killed.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire.."

Why couldn't they contain the fire?

Water pressure was low due to broken water mains and open hydrants prior to the collapse of the towers.

Now I will get into this even more, a hydrant on a 20 inch main is considered a Class AA hydrant, meaning it can supply 1,500+ GPM now that is IF that hydrant is the only one open. If you have two hydrants are open on the same main the residual pressure drops dramatically, if you have 3 open, it drops even more. So on and so forth.

If the main is broken, well than you are SOL.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life..."

No disputing that (Not saying you would have just saying it as a point)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"...maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it...'"

You brought up "it" is suspicious. Why didn't he say "them"?

He could have used "them", or he was most likely talking about the operation of trying to save the building. Especially after the information received from Chief Nigro.

----------------------------------------------------------------

"...And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Whats the key phrase in that whole sentence?

they made that decision to pull

Who is they?

Of course its the FDNY



"We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then." - Chief Hayden



This quote is very important because most CTs believe this is Larry Silverstein's confession to Controlled Demolition of WTC 7. Alex Jones felt that this quote condemned not only Larry Silverstein, but the FDNY as well.

"People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter" (http://www.prisonplanet.com/012004watson.html)

I don't make this stuff up...but Alex Jones does
Who is they?

I don't know and to pull what? Pull it?

[ZENSMACK89]

You counter a demolition pro with a software engineer? How pathetic.

We get a taste of Hoffman's idiocy on point #1 which he basically concedes the point but insists that because the towers were a non-conventional demolition a normal demolition pro couldn't spot it like a software engineer apparently can.

Yeah, the collapses was only allowed to use a 120,000 ton mass in the south tower and a 50,000 ton mass in the north tower. That, according to Hofmann, isn't enough to plow through the building as we saw.

Surely any video would have picked up the sound of those charges going off...right?

After all, according to Hoffman we're talking more explosives that, say, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ).

I love it when twoofer "rebuttals" only serve to complicate things for themselves further. :D
“How pathetic…”

“he basically concedes…”

Hoffman's idiocy…”

“Surely…”

“...right?”

Yeah right. Way to come with the facts and the name calling there. As if I needed to do anything more then I already did when I showed connection between Blanchard and Government spin and propaganda.

What was that you said?

“How pathetic…”?

[T.A.M.]

So according to this Indira, are the FDNY in on the cover up? If they told her they were going to have to bring down, then it came down, then they say it was due to structural damage and not intentionally brought down, than according to these allegations, she is implying the FDNY is in on the cover up?

Correct, or am I missing something?

TAM:)

[CHF]

Yeah right. Way to come with the facts and the name calling there. As if I needed to do anything more then I already did when I showed connection between Blanchard and Government spin and propaganda.

What was that you said?

“How pathetic…”?

Sorry Zen, which part did I get wrong?

The part where a software engineer tells a demolition pro all about demolitions?

The part where he concedes point #1 and then claims it was a non-conventional demolition, thus only twoofers can spot it?

The part where he says the WTC demolitions used far more explosives than a regular CD?

Help your buddy Hoffman out, Zen. Find me a clip of the 9/11 demolitions that are louder than this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ). Shouldn't be a problem if Hoffman has the slightest idea what he's talking about.

[Belz...]

I don't know if I did this right.

Obviously not, but I'll try and make it work...

Ii wasn't taking about NIST there. I was talking about people like Hauer.

I know. His snap judment might have been generally correct, but it doesn't mean he knew exactly how it happened, which makes your entire line of argument a strawman.

It means more then squat.

Do you have more than this "did too" "did not" "did too" kind of argument ?

He came pretty close and then weighed in on the Anthrax that afternoon and hit the bullseye again.

"Pretty close" ? What does "pretty close" mean for you ? If he said "gravity" he would've been correct, but then he also would've been pretty vague.

THAT IS A STRAWMAN, Zen. Give it up. Nobody's saying it became shotgun-pellet sized fragments except you.

Actually NIST did a shotgun test to simulate the palne crash effet on the fire proofing .

I know, but it's still a strawman. Just because you're simulating the impact with shotgun pellets doesn't mean you think the plane mutated to shotgun pellets upon impact. It's a simulation.

Yeah that's what I said you believe. The plane.

We've got several tons worth of evidence, plus visual evidence and eyewitnesses who claim that they saw the plane. The only way to counter this overwhelming evidence is to PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, not simply claim that this evidence is insufficient.

That's because their job is to go inside the buildings, stop the fires and save people's lives.

What is it you debunkers claim "Pull" means?

Dodge noted.

That's not what the "official" story says. Try again.

Well I don't believe it. Sorry.

I don't care what you believe or if you're sorry or not. That's not the point of this thread.

You can't read minds. You should stop trying. No one's my hero, here.
I can be your hero. lol

Second dodge noted.

What of it. I think you claimed an explosive device would have to leave behind traces of itself. No some would claim it did like Steven Jones. I would claim that because of everything that was never found traces of the explosive device are possible to also not be found. That's all I meant.

Explosives blow stuff outwards. They don't desintegrate. They leave traces.

And please remember...

Yes, a plane with explosives most likely would have brought down the towers also. The problem is that it would have looked totally different, and there's no evidence for it.

[Belz...]

What reading, evidence, or calculations, have you found that support your belief in the official version?

What doesn't ?

Bare assertions.

Coming from you, that's comedy.

Yeah [thermite is] just a noise maker. Why don't you get near some and let it explode.

Thermite doesn't explode. Thanks.

Geez mention thermite around here and people go into fits.

You get that kind of reaction when the subject has been brought to bear hundreds of times and has been shot down an even greater number of times.

Now I realize some of this could be attributed to the building collapses or the plane crashes themselves or even random building items popping or exploding in a fire but certainly not all of it.

Why "certainly not all of it" ? Why are you so certain that not ALL of those explosions are due to that ?

Unlike the Law abiding representatives of truth justice and the American way currently occupying the present Administration and infiltrating our Government agencies led by the intellectual heavyweight George Dubya.

Talk about opportunistic?

They used the deaths of 3000 Americans to fuel their twisted imperialistic agenda while filling their pockets with the spoils all on the backs of American casualties, dead Iraqi's, and tax payer money dulled out to their corporate friends.

History will not be kind.

Even the present isn't kind. Sure, they used the opportunity. But as unfortunate, tragic or despicable as I might think this is, it still doesn't mean 9/11 was an inside job.

[Belz...]

LMAO.

Too funny. I will add you to the prize sheep collection.

Anyway, I will ask again for the 10th time now. Will somebody please address the 1st responder testimonies in the vid I have kindly supplied.

Classic Mjd. Ask questions, ignore answers, insult people, rinse, repeat.

[Belz...]

I haven't changed my opinion of Silversteins statement in conjunction with the way WTC7 came down along with the fact that many seemed to know it was coming down as suspicious.

That's because you're cherry-picking your data and forgetting context in Silverstein's case.

[CHF]

That's because you're cherry-picking your data and forgetting context in Silverstein's case.

Has he accused the FDNY yet?

[tsig]

As I stated earlier the official version is not supported by any solid facts that can't equally be challenged from the other side.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

There is only one version.

[ZENSMACK89]

What doesn't ? .

What does?

Coming from you, that's comedy.

And still more nothing from you. yawn


Thermite doesn't explode. Thanks.

I already proved this bare assertion wrong.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/375503/thermite_pipe_bomb_loud/
And what was it Greening claimed about thermite?

You get that kind of reaction when the subject has been brought to bear hundreds of times and has been shot down an even greater number of times. .

Even more nothing from you. zzzzz


Why "certainly not all of it" ? Why are you so certain that not ALL of those explosions are due to that ? .

Why don’t you show me how every single account of an explosion can be accounted for? That’ll never happen.

Even the present isn't kind. Sure, they used the opportunity. But as unfortunate, tragic or despicable as I might think this is, it still doesn't mean 9/11 was an inside job.

How does it mean it wasn’t? How about a real investigation?

[tsig]

What does?



And still more nothing from you. yawn




I already proved this bare assertion wrong.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/375503/thermite_pipe_bomb_loud/
And what was it Greening claimed about thermite?



Even more nothing from you. zzzzz




Why don’t you show me how every single account of an explosion can be accounted for? That’ll never happen.



How does it mean it wasn’t? How about a real investigation?

How about a real post?

[ZENSMACK89]

You counter a demolition pro with a software engineer? How pathetic.

We get a taste of Hoffman's idiocy on point #1 which he basically concedes the point but insists that because the towers were a non-conventional demolition a normal demolition pro couldn't spot it like a software engineer apparently can.

Yeah, the collapses was only allowed to use a 120,000 ton mass in the south tower and a 50,000 ton mass in the north tower. That, according to Hofmann, isn't enough to plow through the building as we saw.

Surely any video would have picked up the sound of those charges going off...right?

After all, according to Hoffman we're talking more explosives that, say, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ).

I love it when twoofer "rebuttals" only serve to complicate things for themselves further. :D
I'm not saying this is what happened but THINK. If the Gov or rogue elements of the Gov blew the WTC like many CT’s believe don't you think they might have used I don't know... some explosive experts? And if these said experts blew the building or assisted how hard would it be to get some ofthem to write a paper for the "counter misinformation team"?

As far as the noise I guess it would depend on where the mikes are placed like on this one of the same CD. It’s clearly not as loud in fact you can hardly hear it. It also depends in what direction they started detonating. If they started at the top and then blew the rest after the building already started to fall you would hardly hear anything above the sound of a collapsing skyscraper. Above all of this it really depends on how and what they used to do it. That’s why we need a real investigation. You know one that doesn’t just stop at a theory of collapse initiation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4&mode=related&search=

Besides there’s people who would disagree with you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWM64aSYxuM&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDSGm2jhdA0

[johnny karate]

You counter a demolition pro with a software engineer? How pathetic.



Yeah right. Way to come with the facts and the name calling there.

ZENSMACK89, a question:

If your doctor told you that you were perfectly healthy and showed no signs of illness, but your mailman told you your doctor was wrong and that you actually have leukemia, who would you believe? And why?

[ZENSMACK89]

ZENSMACK89, a question:

If your doctor told you that you were perfectly healthy and showed no signs of illness, but your mailman told you your doctor was wrong and that you actually have leukemia, who would you believe? And why?
Does the doctor think he might be responsible for my leukemia an if I do have it he might go to jail?

[johnny karate]

Okay, so let's assume that you have reason to be suspicious of what the doctor tells you. Does this then mean that you believe your mailman's diagnosis?

[T.A.M.]

Does the doctor think he might be responsible for my leukemia an if I do have it he might go to jail?

and here focus, we have a prime example of Homo paranoidis...

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Does the doctor think he might be responsible for my leukemia an if I do have it he might go to jail?

Well, then perhaps another doctor's opinion may be in order. But would you seek out a mailman in this situation?

[johnny karate]

Well, one step at a time here. I want to see what ZENSMACK89 has to say about his mailman's diagnosis before we discuss the option of seeing other doctors.

[Drudgewire]

Well, then perhaps another doctor's opinion may be in order. But would you seek out a mailman in this situation?
Well what if the mailman's prognosis was confirmed by a bag boy? http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[twinstead]

Well what if the mailman's prognosis was confirmed by a bag boy?

Well, I'll see your bag boy and raise you a dental hygienist...

[CHF]

I'm not saying this is what happened but THINK. If the Gov or rogue elements of the Gov blew the WTC like many CT’s believe don't you think they might have used I don't know... some explosive experts? And if these said experts blew the building or assisted how hard would it be to get some ofthem to write a paper for the "counter misinformation team"?

So if the guv hired Protec to blow up the WTC or to write a paper covering up the act then surely the rest of the demolition industry can spot the problems with their report, right? Yet all you present in response is some gibberish from a software engineer.

As far as the noise I guess it would depend on where the mikes are placed like on this one of the same CD. It’s clearly not as loud in fact you can hardly hear it. It also depends in what direction they started detonating. If they started at the top and then blew the rest after the building already started to fall you would hardly hear anything above the sound of a collapsing skyscraper.

Oh give me friggin' break, Zen! That was lame even for you. According to your own software-engineer-turned-demolition-expert, the WTC towers were destroyed with far more explosives than a conventional demolition. So how can you possibly sit there and argue that the sound of these charges going off might not be audible because a camera was too far away or a mic was on the wrong side of the buildings?

There were dozens of videos capturing the collapses. Some were from helicopters, nearby buildings, even the foot of the towers themselves. Can you show me one video that captures these charges going off? Just one???

Apparently not. Your first clip (from right next to the tower) doesn't contain any demolition-type explosions; just the noise of a massive weight smashing through the tower. Your other clip is apparently by some amateur giving his demolition analysis. Not interested.

Above all of this it really depends on how and what they used to do it.

So who should judge how and what demolition charges are used? Name the explosives experts you trust.

That’s why we need a real investigation. You know one that doesn’t just stop at a theory of collapse initiation?

Explain a) who should fund the investigation, b) which experts should testify. Give me names. Enough of this vague "new investigation" talk.

[ZENSMACK89]

So if the guv hired Protec to blow up the WTC or to write a paper covering up the act then surely the rest of the demolition industry can spot the problems with their report, right? Yet all you present in response is some gibberish from a software engineer.



Oh give me friggin' break, Zen! That was lame even for you. According to your own software-engineer-turned-demolition-expert, the WTC towers were destroyed with far more explosives than a conventional demolition. So how can you possibly sit there and argue that the sound of these charges going off might not be audible because a camera was too far away or a mic was on the wrong side of the buildings?

There were dozens of videos capturing the collapses. Some were from helicopters, nearby buildings, even the foot of the towers themselves. Can you show me one video that captures these charges going off? Just one???

Apparently not. Your first clip (from right next to the tower) doesn't contain any demolition-type explosions; just the noise of a massive weight smashing through the tower. Your other clip is apparently by some amateur giving his demolition analysis. Not interested.



So who should judge how and what demolition charges are used? Name the explosives experts you trust.



Explain a) who should fund the investigation, b) which experts should testify. Give me names. Enough of this vague "new investigation" talk.
Like I said it's all opinion and yours is no different.

[CHF]

Like I said it's all opinion and yours is no different.

Indeed. My opinion is based on the views of demolition pros. Your opinion is based on that of a software engineer.

While it appears as though you're unable to defend your position with anything meaningful, could you at least explain what your "new investigation" would look like? I'm honestly curious since most truthers tend to avoid that question like the plague.

For example, you want a new investigation to look into what kind of charges were used, how many charges, how they went off etc. Who would you trust to do that?

[beachnut]

Like I said it's all opinion and yours is no different.
No, it is a fact no explosives were used. You have to stop going to infowars and use your head.

[ZENSMACK89]

I didn't bring up the mailman. I would go see another doctor. Maybe a couple of them who are not associated to the doctor I am suspicious about.

This is the problem. Most CT's believe either the Gov or rogue elements of the Gov are behind the attacks. The 9-11 commission had no authority over the very people the CT's point their finger at. I’m not saying they didn’t try or that the commission was in on it but what power did they ultimately have to get to the bottom of anything when the administration, FAA, and the Pentagon were allowed to stonewall them? That pretty much goes for any official inquiry to date.

So what good is it ever going to be? It seems that the only proof official version believers ever offer up is Gov sponsored evidence. It seems a big complaint of official version believers is that CT evidence isn’t gov supported thus invalid. It goes both ways and it get’s nowhere.

What started this present discussion about doctors was someone pointed to a paper that is used by the Gov "counter misinformation team". I would imagine that the "Gov misinformation team" wasn't set-up to change the mind of any current CT’s but to try and stop the CT's from recruiting anymore non-believers. Why would they do this if it’s all just nonsense that no one really believes?

What would be sufficient? Well this posted on 911physics would be a start as far as scientifically determining what happened.
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed — and others as outlined above — should proceed in the United States.
As far as a criminal an investigation…

I would imagine there would first need to be a new administration then a real attorney general and a Department of Justice that does its job. There would need to be congressional hearings where no one is out of reach or above questioning even if they have already left their position or office. Maybe even a new commission. Ultimately seeing what 9-11 led to there should be War Crime trials led by an international body. The US also needs to take a hard look at War profiteering.

[Redtail]

What would be sufficient? Well this posted on 911physics would be a start as far as scientifically determining what happened.
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed — and others as outlined above — should proceed in the United States.
As far as a criminal an investigation…

I would imagine there would first need to be a new administration then a real attorney general and a Department of Justice that does its job. There would need to be congressional hearings where no one is out of reach or above questioning even if they have already left their position or office. Maybe even a new commission. Ultimately seeing what 9-11 led to there should be War Crime trials led by an international body. The US also needs to take a hard look at War profiteering.

Who would pay for this?

[Drudgewire]

I would imagine there would first need to be a new administration then a real attorney general and a Department of Justice that does its job. There would need to be congressional hearings where no one is out of reach or above questioning even if they have already left their position or office. Maybe even a new commission. Ultimately seeing what 9-11 led to there should be War Crime trials led by an international body. The US also needs to take a hard look at War profiteering.
And where would this new administration come from? Even woo hero Ron Paul has said that there's no 9/11 conspiracy.

So when President Avery takes office and fills the NIST with convenience store clerks, maybe we'll finally get the official commission that confirms any evidence whatsoever of a conspiracy. Meantime, don't hold your breath... unless you're doing it for a cheap buzz. :cool:

[CHF]

It seems that the only proof official version believers ever offer up is Gov sponsored evidence.
Rubbish. Most structural engineers and demolition pros do not work for the US government. The WTC towers are the most famous building collapses in history. If there were something seriously wrong with the OS there'd be an uproar from those who understand these things best.

And no, AE911 is not the engineering community rising up in anger.

There are tens of thousands of experts all over the world from every race, nationality, religion, gender, culture, political philosophy. By all means show them your stunning evidence and bring them on-side. No one's stopping you.

It seems a big complaint of official version believers is that CT evidence isn’t gov supported thus invalid.Nonsense. Frank Greening doesn't work for the government and yet I think his published papers on 9/11 are quite good.

Our big complaint is that your "evidence" stems from ignorance. We refer to demolition pros while your side counters with a software engineer. We point to structural engineering reports; you point to academic frauds like Steven Jones. One side has scientific and professional consensus; the other has "experts" setting up journals to peer-review their own work.

A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion.Sound great in theory but you're short of specifics. Give me names of the experts you would trust to invetsigate 9/11. Tell me whose conclusions you would accept - no bitching, no whining - if they dismissed demolition theories and backed up the official story.

As far as a criminal an investigation…

I would imagine there would first need to be a new administration then a real attorney general and a Department of Justice that does its job.Again no names. Please be specific.

If your plan would be to put Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, and Richard Gage in charge of things then just say so.

And like Redtail, I also wanna know who'll pay for this.

[ZENSMACK89]

Who would pay for this?
The same people who paid for the results of the Clinton investigation and this illegal Quagmire we're in. If we can afford that bull we can pay for a real investigation into 3,000 dead Americans. Are they not worth it? A windfall war profit tax would be more then sufficient.

[CHF]

The same people who paid for the results of the Clinton investigation and this illegal Quagmire we're in.

So the government, in other words.

And if this new government-funded investigation backs up the conclusions of the first government-funded investigation...then what?

[Drudgewire]

The same people who paid for the results of the Clinton investigation and this illegal Quagmire we're in. If we can afford that bull we can pay for a real investigation into 3,000 dead Americans.
They should buy me lunch tomorrow too. Like it's going to break them.

Jerks. :mad:

[johnny karate]

I didn't bring up the mailman. I would go see another doctor. Maybe a couple of them who are not associated to the doctor I am suspicious about.


Seems sensible enough. But why would you not take the word of your mailman?

[ZENSMACK89]

Rubbish. Most structural engineers and demolition pros do not work for the US government. The WTC towers are the most famous building collapses in history. If there were something seriously wrong with the OS there'd be an uproar from those who understand these things best.

Um… there’s no uproar? Just your opinion.

And no, AE911 is not the engineering community rising up in anger.

Depends on who you ask. Just more opinion

There are tens of thousands of experts all over the world from every race, nationality, religion, gender, culture, political philosophy. By all means show them your stunning evidence and bring them on-side. No one's stopping you.

That’s what they would be hired to find.

Nonsense. Frank Greening doesn't work for the government and yet I think his published papers on 9/11 are quite good.

Well goody for you Skippy but now we’re back to opinion.

Our big complaint is that your "evidence" stems from ignorance. We refer to demolition pros while your side counters with a software engineer. We point to structural engineering reports; you point to academic frauds like Steven Jones. One side has scientific and professional consensus; the other has "experts" setting up journals to peer-review their own work.

There are plenty of experts in the Truth community. Bare assertions to discredit them are nothing but your… well guess

Sound great in theory but you're short of specifics.

Thank You. The who would probably be up to the next administration and maybe the UN

And like Redtail, I also wanna know who'll pay for this.

Answered

[ZENSMACK89]

Seems sensible enough. But why would you not take the word of your mailman?
Because he works for the Government. lol

[ZENSMACK89]

They should buy me lunch tomorrow too. Like it's going to break them.

Jerks. :mad:
Your lunch isn't worth it. How about 3,000 dead and their families? Are they worth it?

[ZENSMACK89]

So the government, in other words.

And if this new government-funded investigation backs up the conclusions of the first government-funded investigation...then what?
If it's truly independent it will have to do. That's the beauty of it. If you're so confident in your side what's to be afraid of?

[johnny karate]

Because he works for the Government. lol


Do you have real answer, or are you just dodging the question?

Again, why would you not accept medical advice from your mailman?

[CHF]

Um… there’s no uproar? Just your opinion.

Sorry...I should be more specific. There's no uproar from anyone other than AE911. And no one outside of truther circles cares.

That’s what they would be hired to find.Again: who would your trust to investigate 9/11? I'm still waiting for names.

There are plenty of experts in the Truth community.So why do you counter a demolition pro with a software engineer?

[Drudgewire]

I'm just trying to imagine how this topic gets approached to the incoming President when he's being briefed by his new Chief of Staff.


Prez: OK, what's next?

Co$: Well sir, we need to appoint a new commision to close what people are calling "loose ends" in the official record of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, they beileve there is evidence this very office may have been used to plan big parts of it.

P: What people?

C: The Internet, sir.

P: MY GOD! The WHOLE Internet?

C: Well not really sir. To be quite honest it's a pretty small number, despite what they tell themselves.

P: Still, we should take the concerns of all our citizenry seriously. That's what the electoral process is for.

C: Actually sir... well, let's just say a lot of them will be able to vote by the time you come up for re-election.

P: So you tell me? Is there anything worth looking into? Physical evidence?

C: There are lots of youtube videos, sir.

P: OH MY G... speaking of which, did I show you the video of that woman trying to cook crabs yet? HILARIOUS I tell you.

C: I'll seek it out sir. And, well... they do have some books too.

P: Any written by respected experts in their fields?

C: Not really sir, but some of them are college professors... so their connection to reality is unimpeachable.

P: ...

C: ...

P: You're really going to keep a straight face after saying that, son?

C: Part of my job, sir.