Why I despise the Truthers [Archive] - Page 5

stateofgrace

14th August 2007, 07:04 PM

StateofGrace you've listed two convictions which both were in foreign courts. Would be quite different here and would be very difficult too even field a jury. Although if there was such a trial held during the current administration, Unitary Powers of the President would probably suspend the constitution for there trial.

Was strictly Hypothetical comment. In this country if Al qaeda members were tried the same as any other common murderer, they would have too find jurors who weren't even aware of the case. If you could produce such a jury there isn't anyway you'd manage a conviction with the current circumstantial evidence. On a side note Donald Rumsfeld was indicted by a German Court for War Crimes.

So basically foreign courts don't count, right?

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 07:09 PM

OldSchool, why do you persist in making the same spelling mistake?

It should be easy to correct once you understand, much like every truther about 9/11.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:11 PM

Yes they could, with their eyes closed and gagged. If the Prosecuter relied on the Government's side and the Defence relied on the CT's theories, the Jury would convict without a problem.

This is because in a cout of law they need to show it beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond irrational and illogical doubt like the CTs produce, nor then beyond all possible doubt standard that the CT's demand.

More than half the governments original suspects who were supposedly on the plain and thought too be dead have been found alive and well. There was another man who had his passport stolen. There entire investigation into the day of 911 was a joke. I'm not doubting if somebody was brought into a court of law and tried for 911 he'd be found guilty especially if he was from the middle east. Provide a perfect constitutional court setting and allow Assama too buy them a top notch lawyer, Isn't anyway there could be a conviction.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:13 PM

Okay OldSchool. Here's your chance.

Let's say that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is brought before a civilian court on 2,973 counts of first degree murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. You are his defence lawyer, you strategy is to claim that he is innocent because Al Qaeda wasn't involved.

For the sake of argument we'll assume that he has already admitted that he is in fact Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and was a high ranking member of Al Qaeda.

Your defence starts now.....

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:14 PM

So basically foreign courts don't count, right?

I'm just stating our Country is by far the most difficult too convict the accused.

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 07:15 PM

Earth calling OldSchool

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:16 PM

I'm just stating our Country is by far the most difficult too convict the accused.

Tell that to Zacharias Massoui!

BTW, who's your first witness, you defence of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has started.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:17 PM

Slayhamlet

14th August 2007, 07:17 PM

stateofgrace

14th August 2007, 07:19 PM

I'm just stating our Country is by far the most difficult too convict the accused.

No you are not; you are dismissing the conviction of Al Qaeda terrorist suspects in foreign countries. You are dismissing it as irrelevant, nothing important.

You wrongly claimed that no jury or judge would ever convict Al Qaeda terrorist suspects of 911. They have done, admit you were wrong, admit you did not know and move on.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:24 PM

As a defense lawyer you don't have too supply proof he's Innocent. Wouldn't even put him on the stand unless there was a solid case made which absolutely required his testimony.

So you'd let the Goverment make their case, ie showing his links to Al Qaeda, his pre-capture admission of guilt, the Hijackers links tyo Al Qaeda, the hijakers at the airport, the witnesses who saw them at the airports, the air traffic controllers who dealt with the planes, who tracked the planes, the NORAD staff, the First responders, those that saw the WTC and Pentagon impacts, those that pulled bodies and body parts out of those buildings, the DNA evidence, the FAA, FBI, NTSB agents that responded and did the investigations, and all the physical evidence of the planes, all that would go to the Jury and you wouldn't even make a defence? Wow, your client doesn't stand a chance.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:26 PM

I would ask you to refer to United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui and inform yourself.

On a side note, Donald Rumsfeld was never indicted for war crimes in any country. Please stop talking out of your ass.

PS: You're not a writer.

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/142509/1/

Read the article he sure has been indicted. Plenty more articles out there too. It just didn't make US headlines because of the "cooperate media".

As for my writing skills I'm not really concerned what anybody, especially on this forum, thinks. My profs loved me enough too where I never got anything accept an A on every paper and ever written test I took in College. As I only write part time because writing doesn't pay the bills, I'll remember too return and gloat once I'm officially published.

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 07:27 PM

OldSchool gives new meaning to aggle-rithm's quote in my signature :boggled:

No matter how badly you want to use 'too', it's still not correct, and as much as you want 9/11 to be an inside job, reality still says it's not.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:30 PM

So you'd let the Goverment make their case, ie showing his links to Al Qaeda, his pre-capture admission of guilt, the Hijackers links tyo Al Qaeda, the hijakers at the airport, the witnesses who saw them at the airports, the air traffic controllers who dealt with the planes, who tracked the planes, the NORAD staff, the First responders, those that saw the WTC and Pentagon impacts, those that pulled bodies and body parts out of those buildings, the DNA evidence, the FAA, FBI, NTSB agents that responded and did the investigations, and all the physical evidence of the planes, all that would go to the Jury and you wouldn't even make a defence? Wow, your client doesn't stand a chance.

I hate too do this too you because I know its annoying. You'd actually have too show me all of the above especially the DNA evidence. The admission under curtain circumstances could be withheld as inadmissible. Once again I am not a lawyer not even close. Although my grandfather and aunt are both real estate lawyers.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:31 PM

Read the article he sure has been indicted.\\

No, it's a private prosecution, and at that stage it was only the filing of a private prosecution. The previous attempt had been thrown out, and this one likely has been or will be as well.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:32 PM

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 07:32 PM

I hate too do this too you because I know its annoying.

:hb:

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:35 PM

I hate too do this too you because I know its annoying. You'd actually have too show me all of the above especially the DNA evidence. The admission under curtain circumstances could be withheld as inadmissible. Once again I am not a lawyer not even close. Although my grandfather and aunt are both real estate lawyers.

All of the evidence I have just listed in publically available already, including the results of the DNA tests, just because you haven't bothered looking for it. As to the admission, since it was broadcast on TV and thus made in public, and since the reporter who did the interview has confirmed that it was correct and as happened, it would be very hard to get barred from court. The difference between this one and OBL's is that OBL isn't silly enough to have said what he has infront of a reporter who can clarify the chain of custody of the tape.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:38 PM

Define Reality

The thing you aren't in touch with

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 07:38 PM

Define Reality

Don't tell me you're a solipsist. :rolleyes:

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 07:40 PM

Zen, your level of ignorance is apalling.

I'll ignore that

How much time would it take for people to dissassemble New York City ? I mean, seriously ?

I seriously don't know what you are talking about or what your point is.

If a meteor crashed in the middle of Manhattan and blew up everything, would it mean that a meteor DIDN'T crash because it would take people a whole lot longer than that to demolish a town ?

Wow now a plane compares to a meteor? Who would have thunk it?

PLANES CRASHED INTO THE TOWERS, Zen. Do you have any idea of the forces involved ? Because NIST does, and they have come to a conclusion that you cannot comprehend. But your incredulity does not an argument make.

Sure do. I also saw the buildings hardly budge below the impact area.

Yes. Start crashing airliners at full speed into buildings and see what happens.

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

That old canard again ? .

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:42 PM

Phantom i'm going too take your word for it. Considering the information I'd Ple Bargin.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:43 PM

Don't tell me you're a solipsist. :rolleyes:

I took Philosophy as a minor it is a very Legitimate question.

Reality is a paradox it can't be defined.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 07:43 PM

As someone said above, "Oh my!" This really is one of the worst arguments I've seen from a truther.

If I'm not mistaken, the tallest building that the Loizeaux family has taken down was 30 stories tall. And even though they only rigged 11 of those 30 floors with explosives, it took them an entire month to wire it up. An entire month for 11 stories. How long would it take to rig 220+ stories?

Now you're arguing that they should be able to rig 220 stories in the same amount of time that it took the planes and fire to bring down the towers. You're in serious need of professional help if you can't see the fallacy in that.

Steve S.
So then why didn't they just wire a couple floors at the top to a tank of jet fuel?

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 07:45 PM

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 07:48 PM

All of the evidence I have just listed in publically available already, including the results of the DNA tests, just because you haven't bothered looking for it. As to the admission, since it was broadcast on TV and thus made in public, and since the reporter who did the interview has confirmed that it was correct and as happened, it would be very hard to get barred from court. The difference between this one and OBL's is that OBL isn't silly enough to have said what he has infront of a reporter who can clarify the chain of custody of the tape.
I've also have never seen anything that tells if the pictures of all the hijackers plastered all over the world right after the attacks are pictures of the actual suspected hijackers or the pictures of the identities they were either confused with or stole.

Slayhamlet

14th August 2007, 07:49 PM

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/142509/1/

Read the article he sure has been indicted. Plenty more articles out there too. It just didn't make US headlines because of the "cooperate media".

As for my writing skills I'm not really concerned what anybody, especially on this forum, thinks. My profs loved me enough too where I never got anything accept an A on every paper and ever written test I took in College. As I only write part time because writing doesn't pay the bills, I'll remember too return and gloat once I'm officially published.

That's not an indictment. Grand juries hand down indictments, not human rights lawyers and Nobel Prize laureates. I don't think Germany even has grand juries. By the way, I knew you'd be linking to this story. Contrary to your assertion, this was in US headlines. I remember it well. Do you ever get anything right?

Don't you have anything to say about he Zacarias Moussaoui conviction?

PS: I don't care what your crappy profs thought of you, you're no writer. You're semi-literate at best. "Cooperate media" lol

Slayhamlet

14th August 2007, 07:53 PM

There was no hijacker DNA matches done.

Because, not surprisingly, none of the relatives of the terrorists allowed it to be done.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 07:58 PM

There was no hijacker DNA matches done.

Buzzzzzt, incorrect, but thank you for playing.

stateofgrace

14th August 2007, 07:59 PM

:words:

So what is your opinion Zen? Do foreign convictions of terrorist suspects count, or are they irrelevant?

(I know I will regret asking this)

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 07:59 PM

That's not an indictment. Grand juries hand down indictments, not human rights lawyers and Nobel Prize laureates. I don't think Germany even has grand juries. By the way, I knew you'd be linking to this story. Contrary to your assertion, this was in US headlines. I remember it well. Do you ever get anything right?

Don't you have anything to say about he Zacarias Moussaoui conviction?

PS: I don't care what your crappy profs thought of you, you're no writer. You're semi-literate at best. "Cooperate media" lol

By the standards of German Law he was indicted. Once again Foreign Countries have a very different legal system than the United States. It didn't make headlines if anything it was on the back page, I know as much because I live across the street from a news stand and I only buy papers when there's something interesting on the front page.

Once again I could care less of your opinion. It matters much more what my Profs thought as they are professionals in there fields. The audience I'm writing for isn't exactly a close minded group. You'd be surprised the majority meaning the average American is going too love my stuff. Knowing what too write too attract the majority of readers is the key too success when writing.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:01 PM

I've also have never seen anything that tells if the pictures of all the hijackers plastered all over the world right after the attacks are pictures of the actual suspected hijackers or the pictures of the identities they were either confused with or stole.

That's interesting, Gumboot has a rather massive posting on it somewhere about here. The Photos the FBI posted are correct, the confussion came when several media outlets jumped the gun when they just had names and released photos that weren't correct. More confussion occured over several people who had similar names as the hijackers and were legitimate pilots. As of yet not one of the hijackers named by the FBI and listed on their list has been shown to have been alive after 9/11 occured.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:02 PM

Phantom i'm going too take your word for it. Considering the information I'd Ple Bargin.

Why would you plead out if no unbias jury could possibly find him guilty? Or are you now planning to retract that previous claim?

JimBenArm

14th August 2007, 08:02 PM

Although I am a registered Democrat I share views on both sides of the isle as well as a few from the Green Party. I am Registered Democrat because they're the closest thing too what I view which has a chance of winning.

Being aware of the fact that George Bush has classified more documents every year concurrently since taking office isn't political motivation its simply being aware of the fact.

On a political level I'll admit I'm very excited. George Bush's entering his lame duck phase. The House Judiciary Committee is going too provide much entertainment right through the first year of the next Administration.
Of course, no one ever classifies documents during time of war. That's unheard of!

beachnut

14th August 2007, 08:03 PM

More than half the governments original suspects who were supposedly on the plain and thought too be dead have been found alive and well. Wrong again.

All the terrorist on the planes (not plain) are dead. They did not rise up to be tried in a court, they are dead.

The BS you speak of, was a news story by an idiot who can not research properly, that only idiots would believe.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:04 PM

Because, not surprisingly, none of the relatives of the terrorists allowed it to be done.

Actually it was done, just took a bit longer that the passangers because they didn't have relatives to use, however once the investigation located where they had been staying and their belongings, they had reference samples. They even were able to determine that two of the hijackers were brothers.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 08:08 PM

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 08:08 PM

So what is your opinion Zen? Do foreign convictions of terrorist suspects count, or are they irrelevant?

(I know I will regret asking this)
I would guess that it's very relevant to the foreign country that handed down the conviction according its laws not to mention the terrorist who is sitting in prison.

Gravy

14th August 2007, 08:08 PM

:hb:Pardalis, he's doing it deliberately. Don't let him push your buttons.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 08:09 PM

Pardalis

14th August 2007, 08:09 PM

Pardalis, he's doing it deliberately.

Aren't they all? ;)

JimBenArm

14th August 2007, 08:12 PM

http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/142509/1/

Read the article he sure has been indicted. Plenty more articles out there too. It just didn't make US headlines because of the "cooperate media".

As for my writing skills I'm not really concerned what anybody, especially on this forum, thinks. My profs loved me enough too where I never got anything accept an A on every paper and ever written test I took in College. As I only write part time because writing doesn't pay the bills, I'll remember too return and gloat once I'm officially published.
I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't understand the difference between "to", "too", and "two" is not a writer. If it was a simple one-time error, okay. But you continually do it!
How is it that a simple, high-school educated person possesses better grammar and spelling than someone who continually crows about being a college-educated writer? It couldn't be that you misrepresent yourself here, could it?

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:14 PM

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

Because the only way the CT claims can stack up (The freefall speed and 100% pulvised concrete) is by wiring every single floor.

The CT claim on speed is that they feel without resistance, so each floor had to have been blown up, otherwise there'd be resistance. If you admit that the lower floors weren't wired, then the buildings would have fallen as they did regardlessof if the columns were cut or if they failed naturally. The CTs claim that they can't have fallen as they did unless it was a CD.

The second claim, that the concrete was pluverise, also requires huge amounts of explosives. If the buildings fell without resistance, then there was nothing to pulversive all the concrete, so the only way their claim can be true is for there to have been so much explosives that it pulverised the concrete as well. In fact since to make the building fall you just need to cut the coloumns, those CDing the buildings would have had to plant extra explosives to destroy the floor and pulverise the concrete. This requires wiring the floors, literally.

Of course the OT requires no explosives since it says that the collapse times were nearly twice that of freefall, hence there was resistance, and that only a fraction of the concrete was pulverised to dust, most of the dust being much easier to crush items such as glass and drywall. That means we don't have to wire any floors.

Slayhamlet

14th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Actually it was done, just took a bit longer that the passangers because they didn't have relatives to use, however once the investigation located where they had been staying and their belongings, they had reference samples. They even were able to determine that two of the hijackers were brothers.

But besides the two being identified as brothers, there was no way to confirm the DNA matched the actual suspects without samples from their families. That's all I meant. They did determine that they all fit the suspects profiles, I know that.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 08:15 PM

Beechnut I'm sure the military obviously has you programmed better than Rosy from the Jetson's. Your loyalty is much appreciated and deserving considering the pay increase George W Bush has Supplied you with.

I'll admit I did even talk too an Air Force recruiter when I saw how much new recruits were making.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:15 PM

What's your source?

points to the link in the signature in the post directly above your's. Read and enjoy.

pomeroo

14th August 2007, 08:17 PM

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

top search once again wasn't hard too find. Plenty more where it came from.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

Your ancient rubbish was debunked a long time ago:

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

That phrase, "plenty more where it came from," has been frequently employed by one of the dumbest, most hopelessly ineducable fools on the planet, the ineffable Malcolm Kirkman (or whatever he's calling himself these days). He uses it to dismiss the detailed explanations of, say, experienced avionics techs with the uninformed ravings of crackpots. He has been wrong--often absurdly so--in every assertion he's made on this forum.

All nineteen hijackers died on 9/11/01. There is no controversy here.

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 08:21 PM

Your ancient rubbish was debunked a long time ago:

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

That phrase, "plenty more where it came from," has been frequently employed by one of the dumbest, most hopelessly ineducable fools on the planet, the ineffable Malcolm Kirkman (or whatever he's calling himself these days). He uses it to dismiss the detailed explanations of, say, experienced avionics techs with the uninformed ravings of crackpots. He has been wrong--often absurdly so--in every assertion he's made on this forum.

All nineteen hijackers died on 9/11/01. There is no controversy here.

Anybody can just say its been debunked I find it very hard too believe the Government could actually identify any of the passengers of the plain. It did hit a building which then collapsed how could you possibly identify people if they couldn't even recover the black box.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:22 PM

Your ancient rubbish was debunked a long time ago:

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

That phrase, "plenty more where it came from," has been frequently employed by one of the dumbest, most hopelessly ineducable fools on the planet, the ineffable Malcolm Kirkman (or whatever he's calling himself these days). He uses it to dismiss the detailed explanations of, say, experienced avionics techs with the uninformed ravings of crackpots. He has been wrong--often absurdly so--in every assertion he's made on this forum.

All nineteen hijackers died on 9/11/01. There is no controversy here.

Gumboot deals with it here too (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2631461#post2631461)

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 08:22 PM

points to the link in the signature in the post directly above your's. Read and enjoy.
Supposedly two of them and only to themselves not a family. Have they done the rest?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

Remains of 9/11 hijackers identified
Most recovered remains have yet to be identified
Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&investigations:_a_detailed_look=penttbom

The remains of all but one of the people on board Flight 77, including the hijackers, are identified. However, the identities of the hijackers have still not been confirmed through their remains [Washington Post, 11/21/2001; Mercury News (San Jose), 1/11/2002] , and the FBI never provides DNA profiles of the hijackers to medical examiners for identification. Strangely, the official position is that there was a giant fireball on impact that not only destroyed the airplane, but actually vaporized the metal. A rescue worker states: “The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific.” [NFPA Journal, 11/1/2001] As of mid-2004, there still have been no reports that the hijackers’ remains have been identified by their DNA, except possibly for two unnamed hijackers.

beachnut

14th August 2007, 08:24 PM

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 08:26 PM

Anybody can just say its been debunked I find it very hard too believe the Government could actually identify any of the passengers of the plain. It did hit a building which then collapsed how could you possibly identify people if they couldn't even recover the black box.
There are over a 1000 never recovered from the towers. They claim all but one from the Pentagon remains were found even though much of the plane was gone. I also believe the hijacker remains and DNA from the Pentagon were only separated from the ID' ed DNA of the passengers. Process of elimination.

pomeroo

14th August 2007, 08:27 PM

Anybody can just say its been debunked I find it very hard too believe the Government could actually identify any of the passengers of the plain. It did hit a building which then collapsed how could you possibly identify people if they couldn't even recover the black box.

Why not display some interest in learning how law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies do their jobs? Why not check the link I provided?

How were the hijackers identified is perhaps the first question most people asked.

As an aside, what are the chances your imaginary conspiracy would allow someone it identifed as a hijacker to remain alive?

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:28 PM

Redtail

14th August 2007, 08:29 PM

JimBenArm

14th August 2007, 08:29 PM

Why not display some interest in learning how law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies do their jobs? Why not check the link I provided?

How were the hijackers identified is perhaps the first question most people asked.

As an aside, what are the chances your imaginary conspiracy would allow someone it identifed as a hijacker to remain alive?
Yeah, we'll kill 3000 of our own citizens, but can't touch those we've framed as hijackers. Perfectly logical. Why can't you see the truth, pomeroo?

OldSchool

14th August 2007, 08:33 PM

You are not too good at this. The BBC retracted the article. Oops. Sad. Does mom know you lost the job at the Mall?

Whether or not the article was retracted by a single paper doesn't change the fact there isn't any proof many are probably still alive and weren't even on the so called planes.

Actually I am in Sales Staples though. I also do Computer repair on the side which I am going too eventually own my own Computer Shop since Retail Electronics is a Complete Rip Off.

3000 dollar Computer for only 1100 dollars sitting on my desk.

"Its not what you know its who you know"

Redtail

14th August 2007, 08:38 PM

Whether or not the article was retracted by a single paper doesn't change the fact there isn't any proof many are probably still alive and weren't even on the so called planes.

Actually I am in Sales Staples though. I also do Computer repair on the side which I am going too eventually own my own Computer Shop since Retail Electronics is a Complete Rip Off.

3000 dollar Computer for only 1100 dollars sitting on my desk.

"Its not what you know its who you know"

Well see that paper was the one who broke the story but you are right!

There isn't any proof that many of the terrorists are probably still alive.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:38 PM

Whether or not the article was retracted by a single paper doesn't change the fact there isn't any proof many are probably still alive and weren't even on the so called planes.

And since all of those that have been claimed to have been alive, bar one, has been shown to be a case of mistaken identity by the media, not the FBI, and the other one was Atta whose father claimed to have heard from him after 9/11, by since has changed this story to claiming that his son died a matryr's death taking the holy war to theose cursed Americans (eta: and was positively identified by the ticket staff at the airport), there isn't any proof that any of those named and pictured by the FBI are still, or were still alive after 9/11. Any claims otherwise are simply grapping at straws because it's already been show for the dross it was back then, and it hasn't changed nature since.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 08:43 PM

Because the only way the CT claims can stack up (The freefall speed and 100% pulvised concrete) is by wiring every single floor.

That's a generalization.

The CT claim on speed is that they feel without resistance, so each floor had to have been blown up, otherwise there'd be resistance. If you admit that the lower floors weren't wired, then the buildings would have fallen as they did regardlessof if the columns were cut or if they failed naturally. The CTs claim that they can't have fallen as they did unless it was a CD.

The second claim, that the concrete was pluverise, also requires huge amounts of explosives. If the buildings fell without resistance, then there was nothing to pulversive all the concrete, so the only way their claim can be true is for there to have been so much explosives that it pulverised the concrete as well. In fact since to make the building fall you just need to cut the coloumns, those CDing the buildings would have had to plant extra explosives to destroy the floor and pulverise the concrete. This requires wiring the floors, literally.

Of course the OT requires no explosives since it says that the collapse times were nearly twice that of freefall, hence there was resistance, and that only a fraction of the concrete was pulverised to dust, most of the dust being much easier to crush items such as glass and drywall. That means we don't have to wire any floors.

Again this makes no sense. If you believe that the planes were able to trigger and complete this collapse in the manner witnessed how do you discount damage of the plane just because explosive might also have been used?

If the plane can trigger the building to use its own mass and kinetic energy to cause the collapse to follow through as witnessed, why then can't explosives and incendiaries be used also sparingly on just a few floors strategically setup to trigger the same kind of collapse witnessed?

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 08:49 PM

That's a generalization.

One that we get repeated here about every second day.

Again this makes no sense. If you believe that the planes were able to trigger and complete this collapse in the manner witnessed how do you discount damage of the plane just because explosive might also have been used?

Huh? Who is discounting the damage by the plane, other then the truthers who constantly spout "No steel framed buildings has ever fallen from fire alone!" The OT relies on both the serious damage done to the buildings by the planes, and the fire heating the trusses and causing them to pull the exterior columns inwards to the point of failure.

If the plane can trigger the building to use its own mass and kinetic energy to cause the collapse to follow through as witnessed, why then can't explosives and incendiaries be used also sparingly on just a few floors strategically setup to trigger the same kind of collapse witnessed?

How do you protect said explosives and incendary devices from the impact and fires? How do you put them on exactly the right floors? How do you make sure that they are still going to go off correctly when you want them too with all that damage to the building about them? Explosives are tricky things, they don't like being in fires or crashes.

Redtail

14th August 2007, 08:50 PM

That's a generalization.

Again this makes no sense. If you believe that the planes were able to trigger and complete this collapse in the manner witnessed how do you discount damage of the plane just because explosive might also have been used?

If the plane can trigger the building to use its own mass and kinetic energy to cause the collapse to follow through as witnessed, why then can't explosives and incendiaries be used also sparingly on just a few floors strategically setup to trigger the same kind of collapse witnessed?

Other than there were no sounds of CD charges going off during the collapse?

stateofgrace

14th August 2007, 08:52 PM

I would guess that it's very relevant to the foreign country that handed down the conviction according its laws not to mention the terrorist who is sitting in prison.

I knew I would regret it.

Nothing to do with facts, evidence and justice then?

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:00 PM

One that we get repeated here about every second day.

Huh? Who is discounting the damage by the plane, other then the truthers who constantly spout "No steel framed buildings has ever fallen from fire alone!" The OT relies on both the serious damage done to the buildings by the planes, and the fire heating the trusses and causing them to pull the exterior columns inwards to the point of failure.

How do you protect said explosives and incendary devices from the impact and fires? How do you put them on exactly the right floors? How do you make sure that they are still going to go off correctly when you want them too with all that damage to the building about them? Explosives are tricky things, they don't like being in fires or crashes.
Wasn't a firefighter on the 78th floor claiming he only needed two lines right before the collapse? Not to mention Edna Citron waving from the hole in the building. How much closer then that would they have had to be? Explosives CAN be wrapped in protection. Besides like I've claimed before didn't the planes take care of the impact area enough? And who's to say it wasn't the fire that ignited the explosives and triggered the collapse?

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:02 PM

I knew I would regret it.

Nothing to do with facts, evidence and justice then?
Depends on the country and it's laws or lack there of.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:03 PM

Other than there were no sounds of CD charges going off during the collapse?
Depends on who you ask.

Redtail

14th August 2007, 09:09 PM

Depends on who you ask.

No it depends on the fact that every news organization that had a camera and mike in NYC was there, not to mention the amateurs, and none of them picked up sounds of CD charges.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:17 PM

Wasn't a firefighter on the 78th floor claiming he only needed two lines right before the collapse?

The floor that a small part of wing hit and wasn't the collapse point anyway.

Not to mention Edna Citron waving from the hole in the building.

Who wasn't standing that spot when the plane hit the building.

How much closer then that would they have had to be?

They have to be at the collapse point, where the fires were.

Explosives CAN be wrapped in protection.

With what?

Besides like I've claimed before didn't the planes take care of the impact area enough?

So why couldn't that damage and the damage caused by the fires have been enough?

And who's to say it wasn't the fire that ignited the explosives and triggered the collapse?

Modern explosives tend to burn when in a fire, not explode, and therm*te doesn't burn at all, it's made from metals.

pomeroo

14th August 2007, 09:17 PM

Yeah, we'll kill 3000 of our own citizens, but can't touch those we've framed as hijackers. Perfectly logical. Why can't you see the truth, pomeroo?

You know, Jim, I've been hanging around twoofers and debunkers for over a year, and this one still amazes me. How the hell could the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy let any of their "hijackers" remain alive? How can anyone fail to see the problem here?

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:19 PM

No it depends on the fact that every news organization that had a camera and mike in NYC was there, not to mention the amateurs, and none of them picked up sounds of CD charges.
It does depend. There are many witnesses who claim to have heard explosions. It depends on who you ask, which camera and which mic.

~enigma~

14th August 2007, 09:24 PM

It does depend. There are many witnesses who claim to have heard explosions. It depends on who you ask, which camera and which mic.
Yes but are all explosions explosives?

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:26 PM

It does depend. There are many witnesses who claim to have heard explosions. It depends on who you ask, which camera and which mic.

How many claimed to heard an explosion at some point while inside the building, pre-collapse, and how many claim they heard the very distictively high pitched, and very, very, very loud crack of demolition charges when the buildings collapsed?

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:28 PM

Yes but are all explosions explosives?
Are none of them?

~enigma~

14th August 2007, 09:30 PM

Are none of them?
Answer the question Chief.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:33 PM

How many claimed to heard an explosion at some point while inside the building, pre-collapse, and how many claim they heard the very distictively high pitched, and very, very, very loud crack of demolition charges when the buildings collapsed?
There are plenty of people who heard and felt explosions in and out of the building. Then what you get are plenty of other people with plenty of assertions and excuses for what these people must have have heard. And anything will do for an excuse just not explosives. That could never be. I mean you would think the way some claim there were explosives in the building that it had happened before or something.

ZENSMACK89

14th August 2007, 09:36 PM

Answer the question Chief.
No. Are none of them? Ever?

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:38 PM

There are plenty of people who heard and felt explosions in and out of the building. Then what you get are plenty of other people with plenty of assertions and excuses for what these people must have have heard. And anything will do for an excuse just not explosives. That could never be. I mean you would think the way some claim there were explosives in the building that it had happened before or something.

So in other words, no one heard the distictive sound of demolition charges when the buildings collasped.

Myriad

14th August 2007, 09:39 PM

~enigma~

14th August 2007, 09:40 PM

No. Are none of them? Ever?I think your a smart enough woo to figure that out.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:41 PM

No. Are none of them? Ever?

It doesn't matter that some explosions come from explosives, what matters is that you prove that the explosions heard in the WTC towers came from explosives, and not transformers blowing up, aerosol cans over pressurizing, fire flash-overs, steel beams snapping and all the other causes of loud explosive like sounds that fires create.

~enigma~

14th August 2007, 09:43 PM

It doesn't matter that some explosions come from explosives, what matters is that you prove that the explosions heard in the WTC towers came from explosives, and not transformers blowing up, aerosol cans over pressurizing, fire flash-overs, steel beams snapping and all the other causes of loud explosive like sounds that fires create.
I feel rejected cause I only got a one word answer from a woo :(

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:43 PM

Zensmack, if the evidence for explosives in the towers is as compelling as you think it is, then the failure of your movement to have convicted anyone or even put forth a coherent accusation, in six years, is pathetic.

I prefer the charitable explanation, which says that your movement has accomplished nothing because the evidence it has to work with is inadequate to the point of nonexistance.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Heck, the best evidence they have come up with for explosives in the buildings is people heard loud bangs they took to be explosions and explosives make explosions, so there must have been explosives in there.

On the same princple, my cat as a head, a tail, four legs and fur. Dogs have a head, a tail, four legs and fur. Therefore my cat is a dog.

CHF

14th August 2007, 09:44 PM

It does depend. There are many witnesses who claim to have heard explosions. It depends on who you ask, which camera and which mic.

Well that's the thing, Zen. If demolition charges went off on 9/11 it wouldn't matter which camera or mic you referred to. The sound would be unmistakable on all recordings. Not only are charges not audible on all recordings, they aren't audible on any.

You really need to look into just how loud demolition charges are, Zen, you really do.

As for witnesses, if demoltion charges went off you'd have thousands of people insisting to this day that there were bombs...not just ol' Willy Rod.

PhantomWolf

14th August 2007, 09:45 PM

I feel rejected cause I only got a one word answer from a woo :(

I always feel rejected when I go to YouTube and it tells me I have no friends.

funk de fino

14th August 2007, 09:52 PM

Phantom i'm going too take your word for it. Considering the information I'd Ple Bargin.

That is the clown car of all statements so far from a supposed writer

I honestly spat my coffee out when I saw that

This thread is a waste of time, the opposition is poor and quite obviously on the wind up

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:33 AM

At this moment in time I myself am undecided as to what happened on that fateful day

And yet you have all the ressources you need to dig up the required information.

which is part of the reason I came to this forum.

Well, I hope you'll be more kind to reality than twoofers.

I doubt if I will ever know the truth

I'm not sure if that's a wise position, or something I should be worried about.

But one thing I can say, is that from all the research I have done, into both sides, I can honestly say that I have not read of any "truthers" who have called "the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders (sic)".

Not in so many words, no. Because that would be claiming something definite.

CHF states, "they're not dumb enough to phrase it like that"

Whilst you say, "Not only do they accuse FDNY, NYPD, PAPD and many, many others of involvement"

Of course they do. They seldom do it directly, but they DO accuse them, there is no way around it.

They could not have been involved. Does not make sense, if the towers were rigged with explosives, I dont see how the NYFD and NYPD would be involved, why would they turn up?

The truthers claim that either the firefighters warned some people that the building was going to be imploded, or that they made the decision to "pull it", or that they are somehow paid to shut up, and therefore are accessory to the crime. Either way, you can't have one and not the other.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:40 AM

I would say yes to most of these. If 9-11 happened the way they currently claim what's not to disclose?

It's not always that simple, Zen. But the fact that they don't disclose it doesn't mean that it didn't happen as they claim. It's a non sequitur.

No matter what the outcome there should then be recommendations and implementations for future prevention of such acts.

That's been done already.

It's our job as Americans to demand the truth not the half truth or excuses to pacify us.

Indeed. If you think you've been lied to, the best thing you can do is get off of your comfy chair and get that new investigation going. Going on about your opinions on an internet forum isn't going to get it to happen.

There plenty of taxpayer money wasted everyday on crap most people don’t even realize.

I'm sure that's true.

Education is very important and more money should go to it but I think finding out exactly what happened on 9-11 is just as important if for nothing else just to prevent it from happing again.

And preventing terrorists from destroying you isn't part of it ?

Of course it would but why? Should we stop building missiles and start building some flying aluminum jet fuel tanks? I mean if it can take down a 110 story building in a fraction of the time it takes a controlled demolition team what could stop it?

You're still arguing from incredulity. You DO know that planes are easier to shoot down than missiles and that the latter is smaller than the former ?

And not just once like a freak accident or something you claim it happened twice in a row exactly the same way and worked so good it took out the building across the street without ever hitting it.

This is one of the reasons why people here tend to be uncivil towards conspiracy theorists. You've been corrected on this fact before, Zen. Even if I were a truther, I wouldn't go on about 7 WTC "not being hit" by a plane, because I'd know better. 1 WTC fell on it, you might have seen that if you'd done your research.

I don't think finding out how 3,000 people died is a waste.

And again, you're assuming that the current findings are wrong, but you don't know what really happened.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:50 AM

As a defense lawyer you don't have too supply proof he's Innocent. Wouldn't even put him on the stand unless there was a solid case made which absolutely required his testimony.

Dammit, OoldSchooool, can't yoou get that woord right, anytime soooon ?

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 04:54 AM

I'm informed enough too know the current white house has shattered all the records for classified documents every year since Bill Clinton left office.
More documents are classified when we're at war?! :eek:

This guy is two much.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:55 AM

I took Philosophy as a minor it is a very Legitimate question.

Reality is a paradox it can't be defined.

Oh, my.

Reality can indeed be defined.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:57 AM

Don't they ever send old Jetliners to the scrap yard? Besides the flying jet fuel tank would never cost as much as a missile and look at the damage it does. Are you saying the towers would have fell down if they were hit by one missile?

Stop fighting those strawmen, Zen, and please debate the actual events.

Subpoena power. It's a beautiful thing. You see it gets people to tell on each other.

Your world really has a beautiful simplicity.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 04:58 AM

I'll ignore that

You do that.

Wow now a plane compares to a meteor? Who would have thunk it?

If you actually read the whole thing instead of going at it word by word, you might have understood my analogy.

You're saying that since a demolition would take many months or even years, and planes did it in just an hour, then something's wrong. You forgot that demolitions usually don't destroy OTHER buildings in the area.

Sure do. I also saw the buildings hardly budge below the impact area.

You mean before the collapse ? Sure. But what's to stop the collapse once it started ?

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

You tell me. CD theory pretty much requires the destruction of all floors below the impact point. That's 78 floors in the case of 2 WTC.

So then why didn't they just wire a couple floors at the top to a tank of jet fuel?

This strawman contest is getting silly, Zen. A plane CRASHED INTO the tower. It didn't just spill some fuel over a floor.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 07:06 AM

Anybody can just say its been debunked

Yes, they can. But it has been debunked.

I find it very hard too believe

Argument from incredulity.

the Government could actually identify any of the passengers of the plain.

Writer indeed.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 07:09 AM

That's a generalization.

No, it's not. How else are you going to demolish a building ?

If the plane can trigger the building to use its own mass and kinetic energy to cause the collapse to follow through as witnessed, why then can't explosives and incendiaries be used also sparingly on just a few floors strategically setup to trigger the same kind of collapse witnessed?

They CAN, but according to CTers the only way to have the collapse happen the way it did is by clearing the floors ahead of the falling mass. That requires explosives on each floor.

In REALITY, the falling mass can do all that by itself, so yes explosives on only those floors would do. Of course, the plane crash would've destroyed those explosives, but you're not interested in that.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 07:13 AM

Wasn't a firefighter on the 78th floor claiming he only needed two lines right before the collapse? Not to mention Edna Citron waving from the hole in the building. How much closer then that would they have had to be? Explosives CAN be wrapped in protection. Besides like I've claimed before didn't the planes take care of the impact area enough?

Incredible. Just incredible. The same claims, the same old questions from two years ago. Can't you truthers check ANYTHING ?

The 78th floor was the least damaged of the damaged floors.

Ms. Citron was standing where there obviously was no fire.

Explosives cannot be wrapped against aircraft crashes.

And who's to say it wasn't the fire that ignited the explosives and triggered the collapse?

An hour later ?

And the mechanism wasn't damaged prior to that ? Do you know anything about anything or are you just making it up as you go ?

No.

Good, so the fact that somebody heard an explosion could mean a whole lot of things.

There are plenty of people who heard and felt explosions in and out of the building. Then what you get are plenty of other people with plenty of assertions and excuses for what these people must have have heard.

Those are not excuses, they are explanations that fit the known facts.

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 07:14 AM

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 07:17 AM

I am still waiting for a single expert to write a paper, or even come here and post, on how the buildings would have been rigged to produce what we saw on 9/11 for WTC1/2. Not a single paper detailing how much explosives, what kinds, where they would be planted, how many floors, how they would survive the fires and impact, why there would be no signs of explosives in the debris afterward.

Until I see such a paper, from an expert in demolition, I am going with the story as we know it, the rest is just speculation...

TAM:)
Every bonafide expert in the world has been paid off or had their families threatened by the NWO. That's what makes the brave souls who AREN'T experts but still write thousands of pages and edit thousands of hours of youtube videos on the subject SO BRAVE AND WORTHY OF OUR HERO WORSHIP.

:rolleyes:

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 07:36 AM

It's not always that simple, Zen. But the fact that they don't disclose it doesn't mean that it didn't happen as they claim. It's a non sequitur.

Sorry, but taking their word for it just won’t do.

That's been done already.

"The most controversial provision in the legislation requires the radiation scanning of cargo containers in more than 600 ports from which ships leave for the U.S. The White House, and other critics, say that the technology isn't there, that the requirement could disrupt trade and that current procedures including manifest inspections at foreign ports and radiation monitoring in U.S. ports are working well."

I bet the pres feels a UAE company can do it though. Huh?

Indeed. If you think you've been lied to, the best thing you can do is get off of your comfy chair and get that new investigation going. Going on about your opinions on an internet forum isn't going to get it to happen..

When do I get subpoena power?

I'm sure that's true..

So are they worth it?

And preventing terrorists from destroying you isn't part of it ?.

No ones preventing anyone from doing anything to me.

You're still arguing from incredulity. You DO know that planes are easier to shoot down than missiles and that the latter is smaller than the former ?

They weren't so easy to shoot down on 9-11 though were they? Why is that?

This is one of the reasons why people here tend to be uncivil towards conspiracy theorists. You've been corrected on this fact before, Zen. Even if I were a truther, I wouldn't go on about 7 WTC "not being hit" by a plane, because I'd know better. 1 WTC fell on it, you might have seen that if you'd done your research..

It wasn't hit by a plane. Which version do you believe NIST or FEMA?

And again, you're assuming that the current findings are wrong, but you don't know what really happened.

Wrong but more importantly incomplete.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 07:40 AM

In REALITY, the falling mass can do all that by itself, so yes explosives on only those floors would do.

So then they wouldn't need to wire every floor. Thank You.

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 07:42 AM

When do I get subpoena power?

When you file a civil lawsuit against whoever it is that wronged you. Those you subpoena will be compelled to testify and a jury will decide it. This is just an academic exercise however because we all know you'll never do anything substantial to bring about a new investigation.

Par

15th August 2007, 07:43 AM

So then they wouldn't need to wire every floor. Thank You.

So, then it’s unnecessary to posit the existence of a controlled demolition in order to explain the collapse. Thank you too.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:21 AM

It depends on what you consider "controlled".

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:22 AM

When you file a civil lawsuit against whoever it is that wronged you. Those you subpoena will be compelled to testify and a jury will decide it. This is just an academic exercise however because we all know you'll never do anything substantial to bring about a new investigation.
Really? So the President and VP haven't recently refused to turn over documents?

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:24 AM

Every bonafide expert in the world has been paid off or had their families threatened by the NWO. That's what makes the brave souls who AREN'T experts but still write thousands of pages and edit thousands of hours of youtube videos on the subject SO BRAVE AND WORTHY OF OUR HERO WORSHIP.

:rolleyes:
I think we've already cover how the word expert is thrown around here.

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 08:25 AM

Really? So the President and VP haven't recently refused to turn over documents?

So what are you doing about it? Are you one of the leaders of the "impeach Bush and Cheney" movement or do you just complain behind a computer?

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 08:29 AM

I think we've already cover how the word expert is thrown around here.
Yes. We have them, you don't.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:41 AM

Incredible. Just incredible. The same claims, the same old questions from two years ago. Can't you truthers check ANYTHING ?

It’s old and but not tired until someone sufficiently addresses it.

The 78th floor was the least damaged of the damaged floors.

Hmmm and so close to the impact zone? How is that?

Ms. Citron was standing where there obviously was no fire.

So this somehow means the explosives had to be where there was fire?

Explosives cannot be wrapped against aircraft crashes.

Nitrocellulose explosive process involving a ketone
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 3969167

EXAMPLE XXV To illustrate this, high explosives and propellants having a formulation as described in Example I were coated with a material consisting of 25 percent colloidon, 40 percent polyethylene polymer, 15 percent graphite, and 20 percent ether. This coating fireproofed the explosives and propellants.

An hour later ?

It depends on what they used. Who was it that claimed the fire was still going strong up to the collapse time and was spreading because of sheered off fireproofing?

And the mechanism wasn't damaged prior to that ? Do you know anything about anything or are you just making it up as you go ?

It depends on what they used and how they used it. I can only counter a theory with another theory.

Good, so the fact that somebody heard an explosion could mean a whole lot of things.

Sure it could. It just didn’t seem to be anything experienced NYC firefighters were used to or could explain themselves.

Those are not excuses, they are explanations that fit the known facts.

Yes they are excuses offered up to try and explain away something that doesn’t support your version of events. Nothing more.

Par

15th August 2007, 08:51 AM

Well, we can continue this discussion about the relative merits and demerits of wrapping explosives in fire-proofing if we like. However, there doesn’t seem to be much of a point to it. ZENSMACK89 seems to have acknowledged that a gravity-based collapse could explain the observed phenomena. In light of this, Occam’s razor simply slices the controlled demolition theory clean off. There’s just no need for it.

So, unless we see some compelling evidence of the existence explosives, who cares what they were hypothetically wrapped in?

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:56 AM

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:58 AM

So what are you doing about it? Are you one of the leaders of the "impeach Bush and Cheney" movement or do you just complain behind a computer?
I wouldn't say a leader but....

HyJinX

15th August 2007, 08:58 AM

Zen...it's obvious that you've been smoking WAY too much crackamite.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 08:59 AM

Yes. We have them, you don't.
Then why don't you offer some up? Independent ones that is.

~enigma~

15th August 2007, 08:59 AM

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 09:02 AM

It depends on what they used and how they used it. I can only counter a theory with another theory.
No, you can only counter a theory that is supported by the available evidence and science with "it was something else."

Again I use the unicorn analogy. They could have used unicorn droppings to blow it up. Nothing to support it of course, but hey it IS another theory.

Therein lies the whole reason none of us take this garbage seriously. If there was any weight at all to this stuff, at some point qualified scientists who have absolutlely no reason to take either side of the debate would crunch a few numbers and say "this doesn't make sense. The gummit is lying to us," and as a few who didn't already have an agenda going in started to tackle the issue, the number of qualified people putting forth this theory would increase.

Instead the truth movement just gets younger and younger. Why do you suppose that is?

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 09:04 AM

Well, at least we're making progress. We've gone from explosives, to not very many explosives, to an explosive-substitute compund. Eventually it's just going to be some BlackOps guy standing in front of the WTC blowing really hard.

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:06 AM

So who ever is in power creates the truth? Is that what they're doing with their NIST report?

You were the one who asked for power.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:09 AM

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:09 AM

Sorry, but taking their word for it just won’t do.

Fine, but my point was that when something is brought up and shot down several times, it becomes tiresome to debunk it one more time for someone who hasn't done his/her research properly.

When do I get subpoena power?

Zen, what you are doing is hypocritical. You are screaming for a new investigation, but are unwilling to get it going. You want it to be independent, but admit that only the government could fund it. And when the results are in, because we DID get investigations already, you dismiss them because the government was involved.

In short, you have placed yourself in an impregnable ivory tower and no amount of logic, fact or argument can get to you.

So are they worth it?

I don't know since I don't know about them. It was part of your premise.

No ones preventing anyone from doing anything to me.

How do you know ? How well are you aware of efforts by the government to protect their citizens ?

They weren't so easy to shoot down on 9-11 though were they?

Zen, the more you post, the more I become convinced that you are just trolling. Only someone who's playing games could come up with such unrelated responses.

You were talking about replacing missiles with planes. In war time, planes are easier to shoot down than missiles. They are ALSO easier to shoot down in peace time, but anyone with a brain would agree that the military do not tend to shoot down civilian airliners just because they happen to be off-course over continental United States.

Why is that?

Why is what ? Why weren't they shot down ? Why would they be ?

It wasn't hit by a plane.

Did you even read my post ? 7 WTC was heavily damaged by falling debris from 1 WTC. So your idiotic "7 was not hit by a plane" argument, which assumes 7 WTC was intact when it collapsed, is thereby debunked.

Wrong but more importantly incomplete.

No, you assume that they are a lie.

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:11 AM

Subpoena power. It's a beautiful thing. You see it gets people to tell on each other.

Now you're wanting power after your snarky comment to me.

Your fingers are itching for the power.

Par

15th August 2007, 09:12 AM

Shill: "The explosives would have burned up!"

Shill: "The explosives would have burned up!"

Shill: "The explosives would have burned up!"

AH excuse me, sir? SIR? Excuse me but were you aware of this?

United States Patent 3969167

Shill: “There’s no evidence of explosives!”

Shill: “There’s no evidence of explosives!”

Shill: ““There’s no evidence of explosives”

Please attempt to remain polite and lay off the personal insults.

Further, I have not argued that the explosives would have burned up. So, please don’t be dishonest and claim that I have

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:13 AM

So then they wouldn't need to wire every floor. Thank You.

And once again you show how truthers work. If you had bothered to read my WHOLE post you would've seen this:

They CAN, but according to CTers the only way to have the collapse happen the way it did is by clearing the floors ahead of the falling mass. That requires explosives on each floor.

In REALITY, the falling mass can do all that by itself, so yes explosives on only those floors would do. Of course, the plane crash would've destroyed those explosives, but you're not interested in that.

IN REALITY means that there would, actually, only be need to demolish one or two floors to get the collapse going. Two problems with that:

1) That would lead to an uncontrolled collapse that would damage nearby buildings, just as what happened.

2) It goes against the truther contention that the collapse could not have occured.

You can't have it both ways, Zen. Either the collapse CAN occur due to the aircraft impact and subsequent fires alone, or it NEEDS explosives on every floor to clear away the structure ahead of the falling mass, a wiring job that would require at least a year to complete, in utter secrecy while thousands of people worked 24/7 in the buildings, and that would itself require hundreds of demolition workers.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:15 AM

No, you can only counter a theory that is supported by the available evidence and science with "it was something else."

What’s the available science and evidence?

Again I use the unicorn analogy. They could have used unicorn droppings to blow it up. Nothing to support it of course, but hey it IS another theory.

You believe in unicorns? Explains much.

Therein lies the whole reason none of us take this garbage seriously. If there was any weight at all to this stuff, at some point qualified scientists who have absolutlely no reason to take either side of the debate would crunch a few numbers and say "this doesn't make sense. The gummit is lying to us," and as a few who didn't already have an agenda going in started to tackle the issue, the number of qualified people putting forth this theory would increase.

Opinion

Instead the truth movement just gets younger and younger. Why do you suppose that is?

Bare assertion. As if it would mean something if it were true. Were the young wrong about Vietnam?

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:21 AM

There you go again not making any sense. Who's trying to have it two ways?

IN REALITY means that there would, actually, only be need to demolish one or two floors to get the collapse going. Two problems with that:

1) That would lead to an uncontrolled collapse that would damage nearby buildings, just as what happened.

Then the planes should have led to a uncontrolled collapse.

2) It goes against the truther contention that the collapse could not have occured.

Stop telling me what I believe.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:21 AM

It’s old and but not tired until someone sufficiently addresses it.

Sufficiently adresses it ? I remember it was mentioned around may of last year. The 78th floor was the LEAST damaged floor that was hit by the plane. Again, had you bothered to check that instead of uttering that nonsense argument again, you wouldn't have sounded ignorant.

Hmmm and so close to the impact zone? How is that?

Did you SEE the impact ? The plane wasn't level when it hit. The tip of the wing hit the lowest floor. Admittedly, that would do less damage than the larger wing portions or the fuselage.

So this somehow means the explosives had to be where there was fire?

One had nothing to do with the other. Ms. Citron was standing where there were no fires at that time. It doesn't mean there wasn't a raging fire ten minutes before.

Nitrocellulose explosive process involving a ketone
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 3969167

Let's see it survive an airplane crash. Don't forget the detonators, too.

It depends on what they used. Who was it that claimed the fire was still going strong up to the collapse time and was spreading because of sheered off fireproofing?

But such an explosion couldn't possibly be controlled. There'd be no way to predict what would happen. And why would the konspirators go with such a hare-brained plan ?

It depends on what they used and how they used it. I can only counter a theory with another theory.

You're not countering anything, and you're using speculation, not theory. You're using speculation because you WANT it to be true. Again, what kind of explosives and detonators could survive that crash, and why not simply use the plane if it were sufficient, or the explosives and call it a terrorist bombing ?

Sure it could. It just didn’t seem to be anything experienced NYC firefighters were used to or could explain themselves.

How so ? Are they claiming it could be a demolition job ?

Yes they are excuses offered up to try and explain away something that doesn’t support your version of events. Nothing more.

So, now you are denying that there could be other sources of explosions ? Or are you saying that "not all" of those explosions can be explained that way ? And if it's the latter, why not ? How many explosions are too many to be explained by pressurised cans, exploding transformers and the like ?

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:23 AM

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:25 AM

Then the planes should have led to a uncontrolled collapse.

According to the "official" theory, yes. But not according to you guys. If a controlled demolitions was necessary, then the planes COULDN'T lead to a global collapse.

Stop telling me what I believe.

I don't need to tell you, because you're doing that yourself. You're claiming that explosives were used, and you seem to be wrestling with the idea that the plane couldn't have destroyed the towers on their own.

Can they, or can't they ?

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

nicepants

15th August 2007, 09:28 AM

On the same princple, my cat as a head, a tail, four legs and fur. Dogs have a head, a tail, four legs and fur. Therefore my cat is a dog.

"INVESTIGATE PHANTOMWOLF'S DOG!"

When do I get subpoena power?

As soon as you involve the government...but then your investigation ceases to be "independent".

What’s the available science and evidence?

The physical evidence recovered from GZ.
The seismic records of the collapse events (showing no evidence of explosives).
The lack of any physical proof of even one explosive, despite the thousands of devices which would have been required according to the CT theory.
The opinion of CD experts who were on-site that it was not CD.
The lack of any CD experts who believe WTC 1 & 2 were cd.

Par

15th August 2007, 09:28 AM

Then the planes should have led to a uncontrolled collapse.

They did.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:28 AM

More speculation ?

What's next ? Mini-nukes ?

Let's stick to the facts, shall we ?
Sure. Got any?

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:29 AM

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:31 AM

"INVESTIGATE PHANTOMWOLF'S DOG!"

As soon as you involve the government...but then your investigation ceases to be "independent".

The physical evidence recovered from GZ.
The seismic records of the collapse events (showing no evidence of explosives).
The lack of any physical proof of even one explosive, despite the thousands of devices which would have been required according to the CT theory.
The opinion of CD experts who were on-site that it was not CD.
The lack of any CD experts who believe WTC 1 & 2 were cd.
Lack of evidence is not evdence it's a lack of investigation

Par

15th August 2007, 09:31 AM

Sure.

Can you present any compelling evidence for the existence of explosives?

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:32 AM

They did.
Tell Belz it was used in the context of Global collapse

Par

15th August 2007, 09:33 AM

Lack of evidence is not evdence it's a lack of investigation

So, you don’t think the lack of evidence for (or the significant counterevidence against) your theory should reflect badly on it?

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:35 AM

Let's stick to the factsSure. Got any?

You're the one who's challenging the official accounts. Read the reports and then come back and tell us what's wrong with it and why. Be ready to defend your position with facts.

I don't have to do NIST's job all over again.

Tell Belz it was used in the context of Global collapse

I've been telling you this all along. Not my fault if you can't read.

If a controlled demolitions was necessary, then the planes COULDN'T lead to a global collapse.

You're claiming that explosives were used, and you seem to be wrestling with the idea that the plane couldn't have destroyed the towers on their own.

Par

15th August 2007, 09:35 AM

Then the planes should have led to a uncontrolled collapse.
They did.
Tell Belz it was used in the context of Global collapse

Your reply does not make sense.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 09:36 AM

Zen, I seriously hope you're not here to answer the Thread's title.

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 09:38 AM

Here's another thing they could have used in conjunction with explosives where they wouldn't have had to wire every floor. It cuts down on the amount of explosives needed thus reducing the sound also. It would also explain the reports of drilling and dust in the building leading up to 9-11.

http://www.crackamite.com/

Crackamite is a cool sounding name, but sorry it only works on concrete, not steel. But still, let's say they did use this in the towers, according to your link, it can take up to 8 hours to work. In addition, who would be mixing and pouring it into pre-drilled holes as the building burned around them?

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:39 AM

I'll ignore that

I seriously don't know what you are talking about or what your point is.

Wow now a plane compares to a meteor? Who would have thunk it?

Sure do. I also saw the buildings hardly budge below the impact area.

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

So then why do they need to wire every floor?

They wanted lights and outlets.

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:41 AM

I took Philosophy as a minor it is a very Legitimate question.

Reality is a paradox it can't be defined.

Reality is what happens when you ain't paying attention.

Par

15th August 2007, 09:45 AM

Reality is a paradox it can't be defined.

Well, you’ve just defined it as “undefinedable”. Now, that is a paradox. (Incidentally, don’t try to claim that that’s exactly what you meant; I’ll know you’re fibbing.)

Par

15th August 2007, 09:46 AM

Crackamite is a cool sounding name,

It makes me think of Marmite - on crackers.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:48 AM

Can you present any compelling evidence for the existence of explosives?
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

SDC

15th August 2007, 09:49 AM

I apologize because I haven't figured out the quote function yet. Anyhow, Zensmack states, "Lack of evidence is not evdence [sic] it's a lack of investigation ."

This is a variation on the old argument: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's true; but what cannot be allowed is the idea that "absence of evidence is evidence of presence," which he seems to be positing, and which is logically absurd. Even absurd in everyday life, for that matter.

Back to studying formats and functions.

tsig

15th August 2007, 09:54 AM

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:55 AM

Crackamite is a cool sounding name, but sorry it only works on concrete, not steel. But still, let's say they did use this in the towers, according to your link, it can take up to 8 hours to work. In addition, who would be mixing and pouring it into pre-drilled holes as the building burned around them?
There are plenty of people who had full access and experience to the buildings to do whatever was needed. For one Kroll Inc and their long time associate Defence Systems Limited who they officially merged with a month before 9-11.

I would imagine something like Crackamite could be used to compromise the resistence once the buildings started to fall.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 09:57 AM

Par

15th August 2007, 09:58 AM

TC329

15th August 2007, 09:59 AM

It was only in April when I started researching more into the truth movement to better understand what their "evidence" is. As most of you have come to the same conclusion as I have, they are full of [rule8].

What makes me despise the Truthers more is the fact that they call the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD murders. They claim that they were involved with the horrible acts of 9/11.

I suspect you're most likely lying about being an EMT and lying about researching the truth movement. I'd actually like to be able to verify that you are an EMT and was at GZ on 9/11. Can you prove that?

Last time I looked it was the Truth Movement helping to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration and your FAUX News heros deny exist. And no one in this movement claims FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are murderers. Please provide multiple sources showing this is the claims of the Truth Movement or apologize to those who really are on the side of the 9/11 Hero's.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 10:00 AM

Don’t just spam. Pick out a compelling point and we’ll discuss if it you’d like.
It was asked for. I can't help if there's a lot of it.

Par

15th August 2007, 10:01 AM

It was asked for. I can't help if there's a lot of it.

I didn't ask for spam. So, pick out a compelling point and we’ll discuss if it you’d like.

Sabrina

15th August 2007, 10:02 AM

Explosives CAN be wrapped in protection.

*snerk* Protecting them from being destroyed by the plane's incredible kinetic force as it crashes through the building? Forgive me, I admittedly don't know much about physics, but it seems to me that in order to protect the explosives enough from being flat-out destroyed by the plane you'd have to completely encapsulate them in the hardest, strongest material on earth (anyone know the name of a good jeweler?), which would then negate much of their explosive effect anyway. The worst you'd get is shrapnel from the container, assuming the explosive was strong enough to blow it apart.

Anyone on here better at physics than me who can explain that in technical terms or correct me if I'm wrong?

nicepants

15th August 2007, 10:02 AM

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

Rapid compared to what?

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

Explosions<> Explosives

Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

Flashes <> Explosives

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

A SQUIB is an explosive device. Material being ejected out of a window is not a "squib". This would be caused by the high air pressure in the collapsing building.

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

All the concrete & steel decking was not pulverized.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

What makes them pyroclastic?

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Explain a building collapse in which this does not occur.

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Debris outside the tower fell faster than the towers, therefore the towers were not falling at free-fall speed.

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

By what standard was the debris equally distributed.

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Proof that these were blown out by "blast waves?" Especially considering there is no seismic record of any explosive which would have created such.

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

In a global collapse of a 1,000 ft building, why would this not be expected?

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

Again, why would this be unusual in a global collapse?

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

What type of metal? How much? Your claim that there is "no other possible source" is incorrect. Some metals would have easily melted in the fires.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

What specific chemical signature was found? I thought all the evidence was shipped to china before anyone got to look at it...

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

And this means?

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

Why would this be unusual in the collapse of a 1,000ft building with thousands of people inside.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

LOL. I hope you don't seriously believe that.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
The first item you listed was "rapid onset". Which is it?

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Where are the calculations which support this theory.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Fire is able to weaken steel. This is to be expected, and was observed.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

Nor have they been hit by 757s.

That's all you have?

SDC

15th August 2007, 10:04 AM

No, sorry, see your post #1134 at 12:31 this afternoon. It is your statement, in reply to Nicepants. The misspelling of "evdence" made it easy to find per the search function.

Hey, I learned how to use a function! I have learned something today. Life is good.

Sabrina

15th August 2007, 10:11 AM

[slight derail]Welcome to the forum SDC! Hope you decide to stay and debate with us![/slight derail]

tsig

15th August 2007, 10:14 AM

There are plenty of people who had full access and experience to the buildings to do whatever was needed. For one Kroll Inc and their long time associate Defence Systems Limited who they officially merged with a month before 9-11.

I would imagine something like Crackamite could be used to compromise the resistence once the buildings started to fall.

Once they start there's nothing to stop them.

twinstead

15th August 2007, 10:16 AM

It was asked for. I can't help if there's a lot of it.

NO. You can't just call something 'compelling' and leave it at that. You need to show WHY you consider it compelling, and why these things wouldn't happen during a 'regular' collapse.

You can't. For example, the lateral ejection of material. You need to show that this would be impossible without explosives. Most grown ups who study weird things like physics and structural engineering have no problem believing this happened without explosives.

Also, this whole 'dustification' thing. You haven't even shown that it actually happened, more less that it is unexpected.

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 10:21 AM

Last time I looked it was the Truth Movement helping to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration and your FAUX News heros deny exist. And no one in this movement claims FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are murderers. Please provide multiple sources showing this is the claims of the Truth Movement or apologize to those who really are on the side of the 9/11 Hero's.

To propose a CD Theory is to imply the complicity of the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD. If not, then please provide a detailed explanation how no one from any of these agencies could have knowledge of or involvement in the CD either before, during, or after the event.

TC329

15th August 2007, 10:25 AM

To propose a CD Theory is to imply the complicity of the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD. If not, then please provide a detailed explanation how no one from any of these agencies could have knowledge of or involvement in the CD either before, during, or after the event.

No it isn't. Last time I checked FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD wasn't employed by Dominic Suter.

Some FDNY & NYPD have spoken out about it. Don't act like you never heard of this before........

JimBenArm

15th August 2007, 10:27 AM

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Wow. All this stupidity packed into one post. It's like the clearing house for all wrong ideas. All in one easy-to-laugh-at container!
Pyroclastic flows. From a building collapse. When that's something that only happens with volcanoes. "Looks like" does not make it "same as".
Slow onset, with visible deformation, but rapid onset at the same time. Cool!
Symmetrical collapse following the path of least resistance with an asymmetrical collapse following the path of least resistance! Amazing!

Do you read the stuff you post, or do you just copy it verbatim without any filtering at all?

I'll stop here. I can't see too clearly. My eyes are tearing from laughing so hard.

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 10:30 AM

No it isn't. Last time I checked FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD wasn't employed by Dominic Suter.

Some FDNY & NYPD have spoken out about it. Don't act like you never heard of this before........

Okay, so you are unable to offer an explanation why absolutely no one from any of those agencies have provided any physical evidence or witnessed anything that can be conclusively determined to be proof of CD, and therefore you are just wildy speculating. Got it.

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 10:43 AM

I suspect you're most likely lying about being an EMT and lying about researching the truth movement. I'd actually like to be able to verify that you are an EMT and was at GZ on 9/11. Can you prove that?
He said so. I thought that's all you guys needed. Or does that only apply to witnesses who take your side?

FAUX News
:rolleyes:

Not that you ever would have been considered credible anyway, but you've just selected the easiest way possible to convince me you'll believe anything as long as it makes those monsters in the White House look bad.

Myriad

15th August 2007, 10:45 AM

When do I get subpoena power?

You get it the moment the government gives it to you.

And at that same moment, you cease to be "independent" because the government has now invested some of its sovereign power in your investigation.

Demanding an independent investigation with subpoena power is like demanding a four-sided triangle. It is impossible by definition.

By demanding something that is definitionally impossible, you have guaranteed that you will have something to complain about, for the rest of your life if you wish.

If that was your goal, congratulations. If not... oops.

Respectfully,
Myriad

TC329

15th August 2007, 11:10 AM

Okay, so you are unable to offer an explanation why absolutely no one from any of those agencies have provided any physical evidence or witnessed anything that can be conclusively determined to be proof of CD, and therefore you are just wildy speculating. Got it.

Other than saying they were in the building and bombs were going off, yeah not one FDNY or NYPD stole a 'bomb' out of the towers for proof. :boggled:

TC329

15th August 2007, 11:16 AM

He said so. I thought that's all you guys needed. Or does that only apply to witnesses who take your side?

Every witness I ever referenced has been indentified and are not an anonymous individual. In fact I don't recall anyone on the truth side hiding behind an anonymous moniker claiming they were FDNY and there were bombs in the buildings. Everyone on the side of the truth and has come forward and can prove who they are and where they were that day. This EMT is a fraud. He should be ashamed of himself and go dwindle away in solitaire for the rest of eternity. I have seen JREF pull out some low ball **** like Mark Roberts saying he is going to 'explain' to FDNY & NYPD why they were mistaken about bombs going off in the building they were in but he was not. This fake EMT tops that.

:rolleyes:

Not that you ever would have been considered credible anyway, but you've just selected the easiest way possible to convince me you'll believe anything as long as it makes those monsters in the White House look bad.

FAUX News = The most biased proven lying source in the world with the most bigoted 'journalists' (I use that term extremely lightly) to ever bring their fake bleeched teeth to a TV set to read a script. That is a FACT!

Sabrina

15th August 2007, 11:18 AM

Other than saying they were in the building and bombs were going off, yeah not one FDNY or NYPD stole a 'bomb' out of the towers for proof. :boggled:

Not to be pedantic... well, actually, yes, to be pedantic, no one has ever said that "bombs were going off" in the building. They said they heard explosions or sounds that were "like a bomb".

I realize the concept of explaining a simile to most twoofers is useless on the face of it, but I'll ask regardless; you do know what a simile is, yes?

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 11:26 AM

Other than saying they were in the building and bombs were going off

No one said that.

yeah not one FDNY or NYPD stole a 'bomb' out of the towers for proof. :boggled:

Or detonators. Or wiring. Or anything else that would point to a CD. Nor does any one report having seen any of those things.

So to sum up, you still are unable to describe a scenario in which the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD could have been completely ignorant of a CD either before or after the fact, therefore you and anyone else who is a proponent of the CD Theory are indicting these agencies by implication.

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 11:26 AM

FAUX News = The most biased proven lying source in the world with the most bigoted 'journalists' (I use that term extremely lightly) to ever bring their fake bleeched teeth to a TV set to read a script. That is a FACT!
Fact? As in "we can prove they reported faked documents that just happened to support their political view as real like Dan Rather did?"

Does ANY truther even know the definition of "fact?" Sadly, I'm not being facetious in asking.

TC329

15th August 2007, 11:56 AM

Not to be pedantic... well, actually, yes, to be pedantic, no one has ever said that "bombs were going off" in the building. They said they heard explosions or sounds that were "like a bomb".

I realize the concept of explaining a simile to most twoofers is useless on the face of it, but I'll ask regardless; you do know what a simile is, yes?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53815767687186956&q=john+schroeder&total=145&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htTJOeSN0u8

TC329

15th August 2007, 11:58 AM

No one said that.

Or detonators. Or wiring. Or anything else that would point to a CD. Nor does any one report having seen any of those things.

So to sum up, you still are unable to describe a scenario in which the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD could have been completely ignorant of a CD either before or after the fact, therefore you and anyone else who is a proponent of the CD Theory are indicting these agencies by implication.

FALSE.

FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are not nor have they ever been "employees" of Dominic Suter.

There is nothing that indicates any of these agencies as participants. This lie you push is also not represenative of the Truth Movement.

You are as fake as the EMT that started this thread to trick gullible newbs.

TC329

15th August 2007, 12:00 PM

Fact? As in "we can prove they reported faked documents that just happened to support their political view as real like Dan Rather did?"

Does ANY truther even know the definition of "fact?" Sadly, I'm not being facetious in asking.

So you believe Dan Rather is a liar and Sean Hannity is not? :jaw-dropp

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 12:03 PM

So is Indira Singh telling the truth TC?

TAM:)

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 12:04 PM

So you believe Dan Rather is a liar and Sean Hannity is not? :jaw-dropp
I'm a skeptic. That means I understand personal beliefs are irrelevant and not necessarily based in fact or supported by evidence. I think Hannity is a jerk*, but there's no evidence he's ever knowingly reported that forgeries were the real thing... a benefit of the doubt I would also have extended to Rather if he hadn't tried for months after the fact to say they weren't fakes.

You're a truther. What you think is true is good enough.

*most of the time anyway. I'll always give him props for sticking up for O&A after that stupid Condi controversy. :)

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 12:12 PM

FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are not nor have they ever been "employees" of Dominic Suter.

Ah, so you're going with Israel/Mossad angle.

Belz...

15th August 2007, 12:15 PM

Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

Why the scare quotes ? When a building falls down, it collapses.

Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

Adamantium bombs, perhaps ?

Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

Same.

Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

Speculation.

Air compressed very badly, and the falling mass had to push air somewhere.

Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

Evidence, please ? Many people have claimed this, but none have showed it yet. In fact, one has posted pictures, trying to show "complete" pulverisation, but the picture had huge chunks of concrete in it.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

How can you tell if they're pyroclastic, and how would that show that explosives were involved ?

Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

Who to the what, now ?

Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Contradiction. DOWN is the path of least resistance when gravity is involved. The columns offered insignificant resistance, but this is expected when you have such forces at work.

1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

And ?

Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

Yeah, that's what happens when such a monster comes down.

Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

And ? Where would you expect them to go when they hit something ?

Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

If this is an indication of explosives, it would mean that every individual steel element was rigged with explosives, something you claim was unnecessary.

Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

That's a lie. Fire is the only possible source for molten metal in this case. Thermite or thermate does not burn for months, and explosives don't actually burn at all.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag

True, but it's also the signature of a whole lot of things.

More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for

Yeah, human bodies tend to break up when shredded by concrete and steel.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

Slow onset with large visible deformations

That's another lie. We can clearly see deformations in the minutes leading up to the collapse.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c65f25a4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3267)

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance

Actually you see assymetrical collapses in both cases.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

a few hundred degrees is all you need. And NIST agrees that these are the temperatures reached.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

You may have missed the giant airliner that crashed into the tower.

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 12:16 PM

FALSE.

No, actually it's true. You haven't provided the scenario I requested.

FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are not nor have they ever been "employees" of Dominic Suter. Okay, fine. You brought his guy up. I have no idea what relevance it is to what I asked of you.

There is nothing that indicates any of these agencies as participants. This lie you push is also not represenative of the Truth Movement.

And you could dismantle this "lie" in one fell swoop by simply providing the scenario I have requested.

You are as fake as the EMT that started this thread to trick gullible newbs.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. And I certainly don't see how implying that I am a cyborg is going to further your cause. You know what would? Providing the scenario I requested.

jmercer

15th August 2007, 12:19 PM

I urge all participants in this thread to read the NEW MEMBERSHIP RULES just changed today; this way you can ensure that you will remain in compliance in the JREF public area.

leftysergeant

15th August 2007, 12:37 PM

The path of greatest resistance would be down the center of the building. The path of least resistance would be outward. That is the path that the walls took. That's why you see multi-story sections of the walls standing upright in the proper orientation against the sides of surrounding buildings. But the floors did not have any forces acting upon them to drive them outward, so they fell straight down. That was, for the floors, the path of least resistance.

The core columns also followed what was, for them, the path of least resistance. They were all recovered pretty much in association with the footprint.

The "path of greatest resistance argument came out of a foggy mind.

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 12:56 PM

So to sum up, you still are unable to describe a scenario in which the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD could have been completely ignorant of a CD either before or after the fact, therefore you and anyone else who is a proponent of the CD Theory are indicting these agencies by implication.

Your argument fails, almost before you even start...

First of all, what do you mean by FDNY?
Do you mean all of the FDNY? or do you mean some of it?
Maybe you mean just somebody in the FDNY?
Ditto for the other agencies.
None of these agencies is just one indivisible thing -- they are made up of lots of individual people.
Same thing regarding the group you guys call 'truthers'... they don't all lie or have 'crackpot' ideas - maybe some do, but that doesn't mean they all do, and only a fool/biggot would try to push that idea.

e.g.
1) This guy is a 'truther'.
2) He is a liar.
3) therefor all 'truthers' are liars'

As to your idea that "any proponent of the 'CD Theory' is indicting these agencies by implication" , that's just another dishonest tactic, IMO.
If what you are saying were true, many crimes could ever be investigated, without 'indicting by implication' the various people involved...

You are probably smart enough to know this, so it looks like you are using an obvious dishonest tactic in order to attack people who do not agree with your own views.

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 12:58 PM

You are as fake as the EMT that started this thread to trick gullible newbs.

I don't know what you are implying, but obviously you don't understand that people have claimed the FDNY and other First Responders.

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

If you don't believe I am not an EMT, oh well? I am not really going to respond with an uncivil remark because frankly I really don't care what you think.

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:02 PM

Terry...

do you believe the words of Indira Singh on this matter to be true?

TAM:)

dudalb

15th August 2007, 01:06 PM

Your argument fails, almost before you even start...

First of all, what do you mean by FDNY?
Do you mean all of the FDNY? or do you mean some of it?
Maybe you mean just somebody in the FDNY?
Ditto for the other agencies.
None of these agencies is just one indivisible thing -- they are made up of lots of individual people.
Same thing regarding the group you guys call 'truthers'... they don't all lie or have 'crackpot' ideas - maybe some do, but that doesn't mean they all do, and only a fool/biggot would try to push that idea.

e.g.
1) This guy is a 'truther'.
2) He is a liar.
3) therefor all 'truthers' are liars'

As to your idea that "any proponent of the 'CD Theory' is indicting these agencies by implication" , that's just another dishonest tactic, IMO.
If what you are saying were true, many crimes could ever be investigated, without 'indicting by implication' the various people involved...

You are probably smart enough to know this, so it looks like you are using an obvious dishonest tactic in order to attack people who do not agree with your own views.

FDNY is Fire Department New York. Well known abbrevation in 9/11 discussions. No need to define it ad naseum.

I think I know where this guy will go,but I will sit back and let it unfold.:cool:

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 01:13 PM

Terry...

do you believe the words of Indira Singh on this matter to be true?

TAM:)

I can't say I know that much about this -- I have no way of knowing, unless she has some reason to lie...

But I know that what she said does not implicate the entire section of FDNY involved, or even any of the FDNY, for that matter...

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:16 PM

She says that they (The FDNY) told her they were going to have to bring the building (WTC7) down...can't get much more plain and simple than that.

TAM:)

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 01:16 PM

FDNY is Fire Department New York. Well known abbrevation in 9/11 discussions. No need to define it ad naseum.

I think I know where this guy will go,but I will sit back and let it unfold.:cool:

Some advice:
1) read the post
2) reply intelligently to the post [or not] :)

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 01:22 PM

FDNY is Fire Department New York. Well known abbrevation in 9/11 discussions. No need to define it ad naseum.

Actually the FDNY is the Fire Department of the City of New York and FDNY has been it's abbreviation for probably 100 years. It can get a bit confusing as we call the Police Department of the City of New York the NYPD. In addition, the Board of Education of the City of New York is now the Department of Education of the City of New York. I'm sure you get my point. :)

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:23 PM

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

from one of the CT favorite sources...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/090207broughtdown.htm

TAM:)

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 01:26 PM

She says that they (The FDNY) told her they were going to have to bring the building (WTC7) down...can't get much more plain and simple than that.

TAM:)

Someone from a gov. agency phone FD chief " Hi Jim, [Tom ,whatever] we have word that the #7 is compromised, so pull everyone back etc.. no details... national security...

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 01:31 PM

Someone from a gov. agency phone FD chief " Hi Jim, [Tom ,whatever] we have word that the #7 is compromised, so pull everyone back etc.. no details... national security...
Yay, phantom phone calls. I was wondering when we'd have new imaginary evidence to add to the pile. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/toot.gif

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:31 PM

Someone from a gov. agency phone FD chief " Hi Jim, [Tom ,whatever] we have word that the #7 is compromised, so pull everyone back etc.. no details... national security...

now who is speculating? Read her actual words, as I have quoted above...there is no room for interpretation...she tells us what they said to her...

TAM:)

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 01:43 PM

now who is speculating? Read her actual words, as I have quoted above...there is no room for interpretation...she tells us what they said to her...

TAM:)

She would have gotten this 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand...

Myriad

15th August 2007, 01:43 PM

Someone from a gov. agency phone FD chief " Hi Jim, [Tom ,whatever] we have word that the #7 is compromised, so pull everyone back etc.. no details... national security...

Dang it, Terry, why didn't you come forward with this evidence before? We could have busted the case wide open long ago!

"All units, be on the lookout for a suspected conspirator. Name of Jim, Tom, something like that. Works for a government agency, or claims to. Has access to a phone."

I tell ya, if they don't have this perp in custody in a few hours, the police must be in on it!

Respectfully,
Myriad

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:45 PM

Terryuk:

more speculation.

What we have is her testimony that THE FIRE DEPARTMENT told her they were going to bring it (WTC7) down.

Speculate all you want, but if you believe her testimony to be true, it directly accuses the FDNY of bringing down WTC7 and then lieing about this through denying it was brought down intentionally.

Edit: and all those 2nd/3rd/4th hands you mention...well if that is true, than all those "hands" are guilty of covering this matter up...are they not?

TAM:)

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 01:48 PM

Yay, phantom phone calls. I was wondering when we'd have new imaginary evidence to add to the pile. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/toot.gif

Don't you know the difference between evidence and hypothesis?

All investigation involve hypothesis. Also when defending against a prosecution in a court, hypothesis are presented to demonstrate innocence for example.

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 01:49 PM

I suspect you're most likely lying about being an EMT and lying about researching the truth movement. I'd actually like to be able to verify that you are an EMT and was at GZ on 9/11. Can you prove that?

I was never an EMT on 9/11, I was 16 at the time. If you read the post further it would clearly state.

I became an EMT and I am working on becoming a FDNY Firefighter because of the actions of those brave men and women.

Last time I looked it was the Truth Movement helping to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration and your FAUX News heros deny exist. And no one in this movement claims FDNY, NYPD, & PAPD are murderers. Please provide multiple sources showing this is the claims of the Truth Movement or apologize to those who really are on the side of the 9/11 Hero's.

Do I have to post this again?

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

Drudgewire

15th August 2007, 01:53 PM

Don't you know the difference between evidence and hypothesis?
I absolutely know the difference. The point I was trying to make (and admittedly not doing the best job ever) is that's every bit as solid as anything considered "evidence" by the movement.

You know, because if they had something resembling real evidence... they might be able to prove any element whatsoever of the conspiracy.

TC329

15th August 2007, 01:53 PM

Ah, so you're going with Israel/Mossad angle.

I'm naming the man who supplied the bodies to plant the explosives. I don't care what race or nationality or what agency he belongs to. He is a key player in the demolition of the Twin Towers.

He was also allowed to fly out of the country 3 days after the 9/11 attacks when the rest of us weren't able to even get onto a plane.

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 01:54 PM

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 01:55 PM

I'm naming the man who supplied the bodies to plant the explosives. I don't care what race or nationality or what agency he belongs to. He is a key player in the demolition of the Twin Towers.

He was also allowed to fly out of the country 3 days after the 9/11 attacks when the rest of us weren't able to even get onto a plane.

Do you have evidence to back up these claims?

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 02:00 PM

Terryuk:

Edit: and all those 2nd/3rd/4th hands you mention...well if that is true, than all those "hands" are guilty of covering this matter up...are they not?

TAM:)
No, not really.
If a corporation sends a directive to one branch of it's operation, the recipient, who may be another executive or management employee does not necessarily know the whole story... he then passes on the essential to his team manager, and at the end of the chain - a lady who works in 'customer relations' finds her self telling a complaining cusomer " I'm sorry I only work here, and I'm following instructions" whatever...

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 02:01 PM

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 02:17 PM

Notice there's actually been some debate over specifics since I left last night. As usual its quite humorous considering the amount of classified data. There were a few comments which weren't accurate though. There isn't any evidence too support the world trade Center collapsed due too fire. Actually plenty of evidence too say it isn't possible fire was responsible, unless of course there was something too cause fire to burn much hotter than jet fuel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

The last is an exceptional report even for the mundane.

Jet Fuel burns at 1796 °F

At that temperature it can cause other combustibles such as paper, carpeting, desks, computers, ect. to catch fire. As this fire grows it consumes more fuel (combustibles) and oxygen. This starts to make the fire even hotter.

Because of the dislodged fireproofing, that causes the steel to first expand until it meets resistance, then to sag. Thats why you see the exterior columns bowing inwards because the trusses are sagging and pulling in on the exterior columns.

Building codes generally classify steel buildings as "unprotected noncombustible. A further classification is "protected noncombustible". In this case, major columns and beams are protected to some degree. The term noncombustible for steel buildings gives a false sense of security. Noncombustible buildings can be and have been destroyed by fire in contents. The following are some problems that steel, used in construction, gives firefighters:

1. Elongation can take place in a steel member at ordinary fire temperatures. Heated to 1,000 degrees , a steel member will expand 9 ½ inches in 100 feet of length.
2. Expanding steel exerts a lateral force against the structure which restrains it. If restrained, as by a masonry structure, and the temperature of the fire is sustained in the 1,000 degrees range, the expansion of the steel may cause the displacement of the masonry, resulting in a partial or total collapse.
3. When steel is raised to temperatures above 1,000 degrees, it starts to lose strength rapidly.
4. Steel tendons, used for tensioned concrete and for excavation tiebacks, cannot be depended on above 800 degrees. Elevator cables falls in the same temperature range. Connectors, such as nails, screws, gusset plates, lag bolts, threaded bolts, joist hangers, dog irons, rods, wire and cable, struts, and ties, are all made of steel, and in a given fire, the fire characteristics of the steel may be of much more importance than the characteristics of the wooden members. The heat being absorbed by unprotected structural steel or by the metal deck roof is very probably the most important heat to be removed by the fire suppression water. This may require violation of another unthinking slogan: "Never throw water into smoke." It is certainly justified to throw water where you cannot see the target if you know the target is unprotected steel. Many fire texts speak of causing steel to collapse by cooling it. The author for "Building construction for the fire service, second edition, states that this is simply not true. The author maintains the following is the case: If steel is elongated due to heat, and cooled with water, the steel will contract to its original shape. If the steel has started to fail and is cooled, the steel will remain in the shape it has assumed. Literally, it will be frozen. When fighting fires in steel structures, firefighters must keep alert for signs of overheated structural steel and potential collapse of building.

Taken from:

http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firefighterinfo/ce/1999/May/Fire%20Fighter%20Safefy.html

You should read my thread on Principles of Fire Behavior...its in my sig.

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 02:18 PM

TerryUK:

My point in argueing this is this...

I personally do not believe that her testimony is accurate. I believe that what she overheard or was told was something I am sure alot of people said or heard that day, around WTC7, which was likely to the effect of this...

"That building looks horrible. It is probably gonna collapse. Some are saying we might have to bring it down for safetly reasons."

My point here, is that testimony must be looked at within the context of the entire event, the chaos of the event, and then compared against all the other testimony.

To cherry pick this one woman's testimony, as the CTists have done, and then use it as proof that the WTC7 was intentionally brought down, is not reading what she had to say in context.

I am trying to make you see that what the CTists do, taking her words literally, is not correct. Those who do take her words literally and with exactness, are saying that they believe the FDNY was in on it.

TAM:)

Nothing you say here is wrong...
It could be as you describe things, I don't know.
I feel that what she says is probably just too specific to shrug one's shoulders...

If this were a normal criminal investigation, the obvious thing to do would be to ask her which person gave her that information, and follow it to see where it came from. And also to interview ALL the FF who were on duty there.
To believe that any firefighters were 'accessory before the fact' is next to ludicrous.

ZENSMACK89

15th August 2007, 02:32 PM

Wow. All this stupidity packed into one post. It's like the clearing house for all wrong ideas. All in one easy-to-laugh-at container!
Pyroclastic flows. From a building collapse. When that's something that only happens with volcanoes. "Looks like" does not make it "same as".
Slow onset, with visible deformation, but rapid onset at the same time. Cool!
Symmetrical collapse following the path of least resistance with an asymmetrical collapse following the path of least resistance! Amazing!

Do you read the stuff you post, or do you just copy it verbatim without any filtering at all?

I'll stop here. I can't see too clearly. My eyes are tearing from laughing so hard.
You missed a sentence genius. lol

TC329

15th August 2007, 02:38 PM

Do you have evidence to back up these claims?

Do you know how to use "the google"?

Alt+F4

15th August 2007, 02:45 PM

Do you know how to use "the google"?

Yes I do. Are you saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) that your 9/11 beliefs are based on only what you read on the Internet? Have you done independent research regarding the WTC?

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 02:45 PM

Oh, my.

Reality can indeed be defined.

Reality can't be defined.

Although the human mind is similar there are slight variations for each individual. In some cases there are extreme differences especially among Great Artists and Scientists of History. Albert Einstein would be the perfect example. Although he was very strange by standards of every day life, his genius hasn't been matched even too present day. His understanding of the "infinite" made him the most Intellectually capacious of, at the very least, his time.

Only the most righteous would assume too know or attempt too define reality. The right wing conservatives of the United States are by far the most guilty of this arrogance. Right Wing Religious Organizations have spread there ignorance through out history and continue even too present day.

"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. This is a war on personal Freedom, Okay? Keep that in mind at all times."

James Keenan

Myriad

15th August 2007, 02:49 PM

My point in argueing this is this...

I personally do not believe that her testimony is accurate. I believe that what she overheard or was told was something I am sure alot of people said or heard that day, around WTC7, which was likely to the effect of this...

"That building looks horrible. It is probably gonna collapse. Some are saying we might have to bring it down for safetly reasons."

My point here, is that testimony must be looked at within the context of the entire event, the chaos of the event, and then compared against all the other testimony.

To cherry pick this one woman's testimony, as the CTists have done, and then use it as proof that the WTC7 was intentionally brought down, is not reading what she had to say in context.

I am trying to make you see that what the CTists do, taking her words literally, is not correct. Those who do take her words literally and with exactness, are saying that they believe the FDNY was in on it.

Right, and it's the same with "pull it." Truthers want to claim that the words "pull it" were indeed an admission that the building was demolished on purpose. But they can't explain how they in "... and they decided to pull it" could refer to anyone other than FDNY personnel, and they can't explain how that would not implicate the FDNY if it were the case.

It's as though someone being interviewed about a murder case had said, "I said to Joe, pay the guy, and he did," and prosecutors were trying to simultaneously argue that "pay" actually meant "kill" but that Joe is innocent.

Respectfully,
Myriad

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 02:57 PM

Your argument fails, almost before you even start...

First of all, what do you mean by FDNY?
Do you mean all of the FDNY? or do you mean some of it?
Maybe you mean just somebody in the FDNY?
Ditto for the other agencies.
None of these agencies is just one indivisible thing -- they are made up of lots of individual people.
The number of members of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD that CTers imply were involved is irrelevant to the point I'm making. I am merely requesting from someone who is a proponent of the CD Theory to offer a scenario where no one from any of those agencies could have had any knowelge or involvement. Feel free to jump in on that one.

As to your idea that "any proponent of the 'CD Theory' is indicting these agencies by implication" , that's just another dishonest tactic, IMO. No, actually it's a very legitimate point and one that cuts to the heart of any CD Theory. And if you think I'm wrong, than go ahead and offer the scenario I have requested. It shouldn't be too difficult, since what I am doing is so blatantly dishonest, right?

If what you are saying were true, many crimes could ever be investigated, without 'indicting by implication' the various people involved...This doesn't make any sense.

You are probably smart enough to know this, so it looks like you are using an obvious dishonest tactic in order to attack people who do not agree with your own views.No, I'm raising a very important question: If you believe in the CD Theory, can you explain how it was done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD? So far, not a single CTer anywhere has been able to answer this question. In this very thread TC329 has already cut and run. Can you answer it?

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 03:07 PM

Jet Fuel burns at 1796 °F

At that temperature it can cause other combustibles such as paper, carpeting, desks, computers, ect. to catch fire. As this fire grows it consumes more fuel (combustibles) and oxygen. This starts to make the fire even hotter.

Because of the dislodged fireproofing, that causes the steel to first expand until it meets resistance, then to sag. Thats why you see the exterior columns bowing inwards because the trusses are sagging and pulling in on the exterior columns.

Taken from:

http://www.houstontx.gov/fire/firefighterinfo/ce/1999/May/Fire%20Fighter%20Safefy.html

You should read my thread on Principles of Fire Behavior...its in my sig.

According too you theory in section XI Steel Construction, how would you explain all the other skyscraper fires of history.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Especially looking for you too explain why all other skyscrapers didn't collapse even though they burnt for a much longer duration. Also explain how this is possible even though, supposedly, the world trade center was the most well designed skyscraper when it was built.

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 03:14 PM

According too you theory in section XI Steel Construction, how would you explain all the other skyscraper fires of history.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Especially looking for you too explain why all other skyscrapers didn't collapse even though they burnt for a much longer duration. Also explain how this is possible even though, supposedly, the world trade center was the most well designed skyscraper when it was built.

They weren't hit by a commercial airliner

dudalb

15th August 2007, 03:15 PM

Reality can't be defined.

Ah,the denial of any such thing an solid,objective reality.
The Basis Belief of all WooWoodom.
Congratulations,you are now an true Woo Woo.

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 03:17 PM

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 03:18 PM

Ah,the denial of any such thing an solid,objective reality.
The Basis Belief of all WooWoodom.
Congratulations,you are now an true Woo Woo.

Reality can't be defined.

Although the human mind is similar there are slight variations for each individual. In some cases there are extreme differences especially among Great Artists and Scientists of History. Albert Einstein would be the perfect example. Although he was very strange by standards of every day life, his genius hasn't been matched even too present day. His understanding of the "infinite" made him the most Intellectually capacious of, at the very least, his time.

Only the most righteous would assume to know or attempt to define reality. The right wing conservatives of the United States are by far the most guilty of this arrogance. Right Wing Religious Organizations have spread there ignorance through out history and continue even too present day.

"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. This is a war on personal Freedom, Okay? Keep that in mind at all times."

James Keenan

Pardalis

15th August 2007, 03:21 PM

Why do you persist in using 'too' instead of 'to'?

Redtail

15th August 2007, 03:23 PM

The plains hit at the top and nobody is yet too explain how the Steel Melted. If the planes had hit the bottom floor you might be making some sense.

http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

"Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics"

Amazing how all of that grass, dirt, and rocks got all the way up there.

Anyway, the steel didn't melt.

BeAChooser

15th August 2007, 03:24 PM

Why do you persist in using 'too' instead of 'to'?

For the same reason he persists in calling them 'plains' instead of 'planes'. ;)

Stellafane

15th August 2007, 03:24 PM

Why do you persist in using 'too' instead of 'to'?

Because reality is two difficult a concept too be defined. Therefore nothing is real, so rules of spelling don't really exist. I have known this since I was to.

(This is two easy.)

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 03:24 PM

The plains hit at the top and nobody is yet too explain how the Steel Melted. If the planes had hit the bottom floor you might be making some sense.

http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

"Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics"

the steel didn't melt, it was weakened causing it to sag.

Why would they have to hit the bottom to cause a fire?......does fire magically not exist on buildings 70+ floors?

:boggled:

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 03:28 PM

Wait a minute guys. He linked to an article that someone posted on the Internet! I think he might have us there.

dudalb

15th August 2007, 03:29 PM

God,Old School is like a broken record.
When you comment on one of his posts,he pastes in the exact same post in response.

Par

15th August 2007, 03:32 PM

Reality can't be defined.

Although the human mind is similar there are slight variations for each individual. In some cases there are extreme differences especially among Great Artists and Scientists of History. Albert Einstein would be the perfect example. Although he was very strange by standards of every day life, his genius hasn't been matched even too present day. His understanding of the "infinite" made him the most Intellectually capacious of, at the very least, his time.

Only the most righteous would assume to know or attempt to define reality. The right wing conservatives of the United States are by far the most guilty of this arrogance. Right Wing Religious Organizations have spread there ignorance through out history and continue even too present day.

"All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. This is a war on personal Freedom, Okay? Keep that in mind at all times."

James Keenan

This is quasi-postmodernist gibberish. Further, if you don’t believe that reality is objective, then why are you making objective claims like “skyscrapers can’t collapse due to fires” and "reality can't be defined"?

OldSchool

15th August 2007, 03:33 PM

the steel didn't melt, it was weakened causing it to sag.

Why would they have to hit the bottom to cause a fire?......does fire magically not exist on buildings 70+ floors?

:boggled:

Fire weakening steel doesn't explain all the melted steel found after the collapse.

# Elongation can take place in a steel member at ordinary fire temperatures. Heated to 1,000 degrees , a steel member will expand 9 ½ inches in 100 feet of length.
# Expanding steel exerts a lateral force against the structure which restrains it. If restrained, as by a masonry structure, and the temperature of the fire is sustained in the 1,000 degrees range, the expansion of the steel may cause the displacement of the masonry, resulting in a partial or total collapse.

yet:

"Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."

PhantomWolf

15th August 2007, 03:34 PM

Actually plenty of evidence too say it isn't possible fire was responsible, unless of course there was something too cause fire to burn much hotter than jet fuel.

I always find this funny. The Jet Fuel was on e of the coolest burning elements in the fire, the office equipment and supplies burned at far hotter temperatures.

Yesterday one of the warehouses nearby caught fire. It was stocked with massive piles of cardboard boxes for the factory there. It took over 60 fire fighters about 5 hours to being under control, and during that time the fire was so hot that the steel beams literally were glowing red hot. Strangely OldSchool probably won't believe me on that because he doesn't think that a fire can get hotter then Jet fuel and jet fuel can't make steel that hot, so the images on our TV last night must have been faked by the NWO, though why they'd fake an accidental wharehouse fire down here in the middle of nowhere is beyond me.

edited to provide a link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4166886a11.html)

Pardalis

15th August 2007, 03:35 PM

Last edited by OldSchool : Today at 06:26 PM. Reason: For Pardalis

Not quite there yet.

Redtail

15th August 2007, 03:36 PM

Fire weakening steel doesn't explain all the melted steel found after the collapse.

What melted steel found after the collapse?

PhantomWolf

15th August 2007, 03:38 PM

Fire weakening steel doesn't explain all the melted steel found after the collapse.

What melted steel found after the collapse?

eta "snap"

Par

15th August 2007, 03:45 PM

Only the most righteous would assume to know or attempt to define reality.
Fire weakening steel doesn't explain all the melted steel found after the collapse.

So, is it only “righteous” to define reality when other people do it? Are you somehow special and exempt?

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 03:53 PM

where is TC? He owes me an apology for calling me fake

Par

15th August 2007, 03:57 PM

Only the most righteous would assume to know or attempt to define reality.
Fire weakening steel doesn't explain all the melted steel found after the collapse.

Incidentally, I’ve nominated you for a Stundie for that one. It truly is an epistemological corker.

TC329

15th August 2007, 04:06 PM

Yes I do. 1)Are you saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth) that your 9/11 beliefs are based on only what you read on the Internet? 2)Have you done independent research regarding the WTC?

1) No
2) Yes

I just choose not to get in depth on this topic in a forum where a videotaped confession wouldn't be enough. Besides it won't take long for someone to pull that card out and use a strawman to try discredit my character because of the religious beliefs and nationality of the person I named. Got better things to do. Been around long enough to know how this plays out........

TC329

15th August 2007, 04:08 PM

where is TC? He owes me an apology for calling me fake

I don't want to read through 1200+ posts. Can you link me to the specific one where you identify yourself so your claims of being an EMT at Ground Zero on the morning of 9/11 can be independently verified by me?

I will immediately issue an apology to you upon confirmation of your claims.

Dom

Par

15th August 2007, 04:10 PM

I just choose not to get in depth on this topic in a forum where a videotaped confession wouldn't be enough. Besides it won't take long for someone to pull that card out and use a strawman to try discredit my character because of the religious beliefs and nationality of the person I named. Got better things to do. Been around long enough to know how this plays out........

I recommend you disabuse yourself of your evident confusion as to the meaning of the term “straw man”.

NYCEMT86

15th August 2007, 04:11 PM

For TC:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2871478&postcount=1198

Par

15th August 2007, 04:14 PM

I don't want to read through 1200+ posts. Can you link me to the specific one where you identify yourself so your claims of being an EMT at Ground Zero on the morning of 9/11 can be independently verified by me?

He never claimed to be an EMT on 9/11. Now that is a straw man.

Pardalis

15th August 2007, 04:25 PM

This should be interesting to see if TC actually gives an apology.

PhantomWolf

15th August 2007, 04:28 PM

I just choose not to get in depth on this topic in a forum where a videotaped confession wouldn't be enough.

You mean like Osama's, was it 3 or 4, video and audio tapes confessions? And of course there was KSM's 2003 interveiw where he claimed responsiblity too...

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by TerryUK
"If what you are saying were true, many crimes could ever be investigated, without 'indicting by implication' the various people involved.. "

This doesn't make any sense.

Let's say an executive in some corporation or other is running a 'scam', ripping off clients or whatever.
All the various paperwork, correspondance etc. goes through the office and is printed/proccessed/handled/shipped or whatever, by many people in the office.
You say that by claiming a 'scam' [crime] has been commited, this mean all those people are implicated?

No, I'm raising a very important question: If you believe in the CD Theory, can you explain how it was done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD?

How could I be expected to know that?

If something happened, it happened - I saw a guy once who produced numerous feathered birds apparenly from thin air -- I didn't say to myself "that didn't happen" :)

johnny karate

15th August 2007, 05:05 PM

Let's say an executive in some corporation or other is running a 'scam', ripping off clients or whatever.
All the various paperwork, correspondance etc. goes through the office and is printed/proccessed/handled/shipped or whatever, by many people in the office. You say that by claiming a 'scam' [crime] has been commited, this mean all those people are implicated? Well, of course they are. Under the law, it's called being an accessory. Unless, of course, the scam was perpetrated in such a way that every other person involved in it was completely oblivious as to what was actually happening, which is highly unlikely. This is the untenable position in which supporters of the CD Theory find themselves regarding the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD. I'm still waiting for one of you to explain how this scenario supposedly took place.

How could I be expected to know that?It's your theory not mine. It's not my fault if you aren't able to articulate it.

If something happened, it happened - I saw a guy once who produced numerous feathered birds apparenly from thin air -- I didn't say to myself "that didn't happen" :)Poor analogy. No one saw a CD take place on 9/11. What everyone saw was two commercial jetliners slam into the WTC, cause massive fires, and the eventual collapse of three buildings.

So, once again I make this request of you and any other proponent of the CD Theory: Either describe in detail how a CD would have been possible without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD or admit that your astronomically dubious claims imply guilt on the part of those agencies. You can't have it both ways.

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 05:16 PM

Unless, of course, the scam was perpetrated in such a way that every other person involved in it was completely oblivious as to what was actually happening

This sort of thing happens, nothing difficult to understand there - end of story.

If you believe in the CD Theory, can you explain how it was done without the knowledge or involvement of the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD?

Originally Posted by TerryUK
How could I be expected to know that?

It's your theory not mine. It's not my fault if you aren't able to articulate it.

No. It's NOT my theory - it's YOUR assertion.

If there was a CD at WTC7, there was a CD, period.

TC329

15th August 2007, 05:43 PM

For TC:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2871478&postcount=1198

You were 16 on 9/11.

You've really offered up no evidence that you are an EMT but since you're not claiming to have been at GZ on 9/11 I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for saying you are a 'fake' EMT.

I would highly recommend instead of wasting your time on Alex Jones and the Watson brothers that you google "FDNY Oral Histories" and read through them all. Especially if you really want to be FDNY someday.

The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes. In fact, it seems to be only the Truth Movement that cares about 9/11 Heroes. We are the side trying to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration denies exist. We were the ones who sided with the FDNY when they were told they weren't allowed to carry on the rescue efforts and had to leave the fallen in that pile so the evidence could be shipped off and destroyed quickly.

You're still young dude. You gotta a lot of learning to do. Hear me now and believe me later. I hope it works out for you.

peace

Par

15th August 2007, 05:46 PM

This sort of thing happens, nothing difficult to understand there - end of story.
Originally Posted by TerryUK
How could I be expected to know that?

So, you’re saying that the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD carried out a controlled demolition without knowing it. However, you’ve no idea how this happened and it’s not a question that you feel there’s any need to trouble yourself over. That’s truly bizarre.

If there was a CD at WTC7, there was a CD, period.

Petitio Principii.

pomeroo

15th August 2007, 05:46 PM

The plains hit at the top and nobody is yet too explain how the Steel Melted. If the planes had hit the bottom floor you might be making some sense.

http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

"Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics"

Did you just awaken from a five-year coma?

You can't possibly be serious.

Have you read anything at all by a serious researcher?

Anything?

pomeroo

15th August 2007, 05:51 PM

So you believe Dan Rather is a liar and Sean Hannity is not? :jaw-dropp

Sean Hannity is a partisan commentator who advocates for the conservative side. He acknowledges being a partisan commentator.

Dan Rather is a partisan commentator who advocates for the liberal side.
He calls himself an objective journalist.

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 05:52 PM

No, not really.
If a corporation sends a directive to one branch of it's operation, the recipient, who may be another executive or management employee does not necessarily know the whole story... he then passes on the essential to his team manager, and at the end of the chain - a lady who works in 'customer relations' finds her self telling a complaining cusomer " I'm sorry I only work here, and I'm following instructions" whatever...

BS, and you know it. If she got the word from the 4th hand that the FDNY was going to bring building seven down, than all the hands prior to that had to AT LEAST know that much, yet none of those hands have admitted this, so they are covering it up...if you believe her story.

TAM:)

TerryUK

15th August 2007, 05:59 PM

So, you’re saying that the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD carried out a controlled demolition without knowing it. However, you’ve no idea how this happened and it’s not a question that you feel there’s any need to trouble yourself over. That’s truly bizarre.

Show me where I said the NYPD, FDNY, and PAPD carried out a controlled demolition.

Originally Posted by TerryUK
If there was a CD at WTC7, there was a CD, period.

Par wrote: Petitio Principii.

Sorry this doesn't apply, I said "if there was a CD, there was a CD, period"

no 'Petitio Principii' there now is there? :)

T.A.M.

15th August 2007, 06:03 PM

You were 16 on 9/11.

You've really offered up no evidence that you are an EMT but since you're not claiming to have been at GZ on 9/11 I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for saying you are a 'fake' EMT.

someone bronze that quote.

I would highly recommend instead of wasting your time on Alex Jones and the Watson brothers that you google "FDNY Oral Histories" and read through them all. Especially if you really want to be FDNY someday.

Yes do that NYCEMT86, but make sure you read the entire histories, not just the cherries left at truther sites.

The Truth Movement is not the enemy of 9/11 Heroes.

says he who belongs to a movement full of those who believe Indira Singh, and believe elements of the FDNY were instructed to bring down WTC7, did so, but then kept it hidden...

In fact, it seems to be only the Truth Movement that cares about 9/11 Heroes.

Based on what??? please provide one example of how debunkers on this forum do not care about the 9/11 heroes? Come on, give me one...Don't forget, I have already shown how those who believe Indira Singh's testimony to be valid, by definition, have to believe certain elements of the FDNY were in on it....no debunkers believe it...

We are the side trying to expose the 'cough' the Bush Administration denies exist.

does Bush have a cold???

We were the ones who sided with the FDNY when they were told they weren't allowed to carry on the rescue efforts and had to leave the fallen in that pile so the evidence could be shipped off and destroyed quickly.

Oh really, who did that? you were there? who was there, at THAT TIME, belonging to the 9/11 truth movement at that time? I do not even think at that time such a movement existed. You are speaking garbage now.

You're still young dude. You gotta a lot of learning to do. Hear me now and believe me later. I hope it works out for you.
peace

Stick with us NYCEMT86, and TC is right, it will work out for you.

TAM:)