# 9/11 Conspiracy



## DGS49 (Oct 17, 2014)

There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."

In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.

But the events of 9/11 were obviously brought about by a criminal conspiracy (many people coordinating their actions to bring about a particular result), and the only remaining questions are (1) who conspired, (2) what was the objective, and (3) what conclusions are to be drawn.

We, the American public, are led to believe that basically all of the conspirators either died in the plane crashes or have been convicted in American courts, or were killed at a residential compound in Pakistan.

The Bogey Man (men) is (are) dead.

But I call your attention to the collapse of WTC7, a 48 story skyscraper that collapsed in a very controlled manner a couple hours after towers 1 and 2 collapsed.  Looking at the video (sorry, I'm too technically stupid to link it), the collapse looks remarkably like the planned implosions of large buildings that we see on the news when one or another demolition company is brought in to destroy a large building for future development of the real estate.  "We" are expected to believe that the plane crashes and the seismological movement from the previous events of that day so weakened the superstructure of WTC7 that it simply collapsed on its own.

But that is simply not believable, looking at the video.  This was a planned implosion.

There is a former Marine (etc, etc, etc) called, "Alan Sabrosky" who makes a fairly convincing case that the events of 9/11 were the product of two parallel conspiracies, one by Arab-Muslim extremists and one by radical Zionists, the two of which being surreptitiously coordinated to impel the U.S. into a global war against Islam, for the benefit of the Zionist State.

Sabrosky cites other factual information from the days following 9/11 - men in white vans seen filming the events and "high-fiving" one another, and so forth.

Not surprisingly, there is a cottage industry of debunking Sabrosky, but viewed carefully, none of it refutes his facts; it's all about attacking his bona fides as a military consultant, lecturer, professor, and so on (his C.V. is quite impressive).

But the biggest factor supporting Sabrosky's theory is that IT WORKED!  The attacks were the catalyst for a war against - basically - radical Islam, which worked to the benefit of the Zionists, beyond their wildest dreams, one might imagine.

I haven't done justice to Sabrosky's theory or summary in this short posting.  If you have any interest in the question it is easy enough to look up and review.  I personally have, until very recently, accepted the generally-held view that this was the work of a couple dozen Arab crazies who took a pretty good plan and turned into - posthumously - a fabulously successful terrorist attack, costing America thousands of lives and many billions of dollars.  An attack that to this day makes air travel a royal pain in the ass for those of us who have to endure it.

Look it up.  Whaddya think?


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 17, 2014)

What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.

Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
PressTV - Israel celebrates successful 9 11 operation on Purim holiday





> For more than eleven years, Israel has been wildly celebrating the success of its 9/11 operation against the United States of America. The latest example: Israeli children recently dressed up as the burning Twin Towers, complete with impaled exploding airplanes, to celebrate the bizarre Jewish holiday known as Purim.
> 
> 
> Purim exalts and commemorates an ancient operation very much like 9/11. It glorifies the deceptions of Esther, who concealed her Jewish identity to seduce the King of Persia, then slyly tricked him into slaughtering 75,000 people deemed “enemies of the Jews.”
> ...



Also, if you want, check out 9 11 Missing Links


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 17, 2014)

LOL! Is that why Madonna used to call her self "Esther"? (or still does, I dunno')


----------



## Penelope (Oct 17, 2014)

Lots of people still care, believe me. but this is on the wrong thread, so it will most likely be moved.


----------



## toastman (Oct 17, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> 
> Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
> PressTV - Israel celebrates successful 9 11 operation on Purim holiday
> ...



Hhahahaha. PressTv claiming that Israel has been celebrating 9/11 for 11 years. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Not surprised that it comes from a very pro Muslim anti Israel site.
I think it's a tactic to take the attention off the real people who have been celebrating 9/11.... Muslims.
I love how the first phrase says "celebrating the success of ITS operation" hahaha 
Live most people already know, PressTV is a bullshit propaganda site


----------



## teddyearp (Oct 17, 2014)

Doesn't belong here.  Soon it will be where the other looney tunes belong.  Sunni Man, Penelope, Monti, and the others unfortunately will still be hanging around here sometimes though . . . . LOL.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 17, 2014)

teddyearp said:


> Doesn't belong here.  Soon it will be where the other looney tunes belong.  Sunni Man, Penelope, Monti, and the others unfortunately will still be hanging around here sometimes though . . . . LOL.



Not loony, have known this for years. Nothing loony about it.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 17, 2014)

toastman said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> ...



Yeah, and Israeli news agency sites. . . I'm sure those aren't propaganda.   And all those US media outlets with TIES to the CFR? 

Are you really THAT obtuse?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 17, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> 
> Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
> PressTV - Israel celebrates successful 9 11 operation on Purim holiday
> ...



Iran's state-owned PressTV? Really dude?   
Care to know what kind of flaming morons get their "facts" there?
Want to know who and what your fellow believers are? 
Read the comment section of that article for your answer.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 17, 2014)

Here's a big thank you for DGS, Penelope, Mr. Beale and all those who still buy into and post these 9/11 "the Jooos did it" CTs.
You have effectively reduced the entire 9/11 CT Movement to DVD and t-shirt hawkers and their not-too-bright sycophants.
One disgruntled "Truther," _*Joe Giambrone*,_ even had his angry screed published at 9/11Truth.org, one of the most popular 9/11 CT websites in which he lamented: "By 2009, the 9/11 'Truth' Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock."

Again, I thank you all.  

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http://www.911truth.org/disinformation-killed-911-truth/&ei=E5tBVKy-IpC3yATJs4HQBQ&usg=AFQjCNELthFTQih6F7GCm383yJ2ZB3KqUQ&bvm=bv.77648437,d.aWw


----------



## PredFan (Oct 17, 2014)

Yup, it's an inside job.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 17, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> ...



You think Israel would advertise this, but they might as they laugh at how blind  some US citizens are.


----------



## toastman (Oct 17, 2014)

MisterBeale said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Stop changing the subject. PressTV is an Iranian owned news agency and is well known for it's anti - Israel propaganda. 

Israel doesn't celebrate the 9/11 attacks. That's absurd. What's even more absurd is that deluded people like you believe this trash.


----------



## toastman (Oct 17, 2014)

Penelope said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Nah, they're laughing at how brainwashed people like you are.


----------



## teddyearp (Oct 17, 2014)

Penelope said:


> teddyearp said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't belong here.  Soon it will be where the other looney tunes belong.  Sunni Man, Penelope, Monti, and the others unfortunately will still be hanging around here sometimes though . . . . LOL.
> ...



And now it is moved. To the section for Looney Tunes.  For the readers, it started for some reason in the Israel/Palestine section. And we see here who is still somewhat Looney.

My first comment in this thread related to those who will still be found posting looney stuff in the original section that this thread came from.  Clear as mud, eh?


----------



## Penelope (Oct 18, 2014)

No its on conspiracy forum, as it was a very well played out conspiracy.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 18, 2014)

Mad Scientist said:


> LOL! Is that why Madonna used to call her self "Esther"? (or still does, I dunno')



Oh its just makes one so upset.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 18, 2014)

Penelope said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! Is that why Madonna used to call her self "Esther"? (or still does, I dunno')
> ...



It clearly upsets one type of person,


----------



## Penelope (Oct 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > Mad Scientist said:
> ...



You mean the ones who think mass murders should be imprisoned, that would be me. The real terrorist, the Zionist should pay for their attack on US soil ,yes that would be me. I see the truth huts you hey, lost for words I see.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 18, 2014)

Penelope said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Perhaps you could explain why it is the vast majority of Jew-hating posters are semiliterate slugs?
BTW, if you believe your phony pro-Palestinian veneer fools anyone you are fooling only yourself.


----------



## Penelope (Oct 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


 
Because they blew up the twin towers and killed lots of people, that is why.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 18, 2014)

Penelope said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



That's not true but it is an interesting way to explain your monumental lack of intelligence, education and rationality. I find virtually all anti-Semitic twits - in addition to their semiliteracy - seem to have an inexhaustible supply of excuses for their *mindless* hate.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 19, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> the collapse looks remarkably like the planned implosions of large buildings that we see on the news when one or another demolition company is brought in to destroy a large building for future development of the real estate. "We" are expected to believe that the plane crashes and the seismological movement from the previous events of that day so weakened the superstructure of WTC7 that it simply collapsed on its own.
> 
> But that is simply not believable, looking at the video. This was a planned implosion.



In an attempt to stay focused on the actual topic at hand here,
Why should anybody believe the steaming pile of crap published by the NIST, when all of the evidence points to a Controlled Demolition?


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > the collapse looks remarkably like the planned implosions of large buildings that we see on the news when one or another demolition company is brought in to destroy a large building for future development of the real estate. "We" are expected to believe that the plane crashes and the seismological movement from the previous events of that day so weakened the superstructure of WTC7 that it simply collapsed on its own.
> ...



Perhaps because none of the evidence points towards a CD or that "there were no planes hijacked on 9/11" or that "the fires were staged and controlled." You see, you have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



"*Its a trick we always use it*"


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



Ya know, that sounds suspiciously similar to Pene's explanation: "I hate Jooos therefore they perpetrated 9/11!"


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 20, 2014)

Just my bit on the subject, I really don't care if the 
*Symbionese Liberation Army* did it, I know for certain that it was NOT done with hijacked airliners, therefore the official version = FRAUD.


----------



## wihosa (Oct 20, 2014)

911 was a black flag operation. It's so obvious that it was not carried out by 19 hijackers that I feel a little embarrassed for those who still believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.
It took me a long time to come to grips witht the fact that elements of our own government were involved. Really changes you world view.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 20, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


I'm sorry to hear about your cognitive disorder. No, it's a tactic you resort to quite frequently, even doing so in this last response. It's lame.

So, you call someone an asshole because they find that "dancing Israelis" video disturbing?
My question is, why don't YOU find it disturbing?

The heavily redacted FBI report includes such ditties as:

"film obtained from the 35mm camera of one of the detainees was later developed and processed by Newark Division. The photos clearly corroborate [redacted] statements in that the Israelis are visibly happy on nearly all of the photographs."

"airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide"

"oddly, equipment used in a moving company's daily duties not found, including work gloves, blankets, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers, etc"

"A search of Urban Systems, Weehawken, NJ revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterize the company as a possible "fraudulent operation."
----------

It's interesting how much time you and your miffer friends waste on these 9/11 threads just to contest a movement that has no merit, is a "laughingstock" and is already dead .  ...and spare me some crap about how much fun it is to mess with the tin-foil wearin 'tards.
Alan Sabrosky scared the living shit out of you, didn't he? Just as intended I suspect.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 20, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



Who?


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

Get this, one way or another, its a conspiracy,
19 radical fanatics conspire together, ..... OR?

The way that the events stack up, the official story can not possibly be true because in order to destroy the twin towers & 7 in the manner that was done, the laws of physics would have had to have been suspended for 9/11/2001.


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> Get this, one way or another, its a conspiracy,
> 19 radical fanatics conspire together, ..... OR?
> 
> The way that the events stack up, the official story can not possibly be true because in order to destroy the twin towers & 7 in the manner that was done, the laws of physics would have had to have been suspended for 9/11/2001.



But in order to accept your story ("no planes were hijacked" and "the fires were staged and controlled") one must suspend all logic and rationality. No thanks.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> suspend all logic and rationality



This is the domain of the ones who accept the official story.
note that in order to accept the official story, you have to ignore
the violations of the laws of physics inherent in the official explanation.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > suspend all logic and rationality
> ...


bullshit there is no "violations of the laws of physics inherent in the official explanation"
that one of the oldest and falsest ct nut sack talking point there is.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

911 - Physics Themodynamics of 9 11 and WTC 7


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 21, 2014)

8:48 am  AAFlight 11 crashes into the North tower 

8:52 am  CBS begins it's Special Report coverage

21:20 on video
Gumbel: "..We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan........"
---------------------
21:48  on video
The FIRST eyewitness to speak on CBS TV(via phone), Stuart on Thompson St in SoHo:

Stuart: "I literally saw a.. it seemed to be like a small plane..I just heard a couple noises..it looked, it looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top.."
----------------------
24:08 on video
Gumbel:  "Were you looking up as the plane approached the building or did it only call your, catch your attention after it crashed into the WTC?"

Stuart: "I heard a.. like sort of a crashing sound but I looked up and I looked up quick enough to actually see something go into the building but everything happened    so fast I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at"
----------------------
24:34  on video
Gumbel: "It's hard for us to tell from the picture we're seeing just how far down from the top that plane crashed, have you any better eyesight to it, from your vantage point?"

Stuart: "Um.. not really all I know is it definitely wasn't the top half of the building because that seems to be intact from what I saw..um I really can't tell"
----------------------

How many different ways does this make you say... WTF???


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> 8:48 am  AAFlight 11 crashes into the North tower
> 
> 8:52 am  CBS begins it's Special Report coverage
> 
> ...



Things that make YOU say WTF do not constitute proof of your foil-hat CTs. That anyone would read the words of an ear-witness who admitted he "wasn't quite sure what I was looking at" and "from what I saw..um I really can't tell" and consider that to be proof of something makes me say "WTF!" 
So WTF? What are you trying (and failing) to prove?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> 8:48 am  AAFlight 11 crashes into the North tower
> 
> 8:52 am  CBS begins it's Special Report coverage
> 
> ...


 WHERE THE FUCK does that even hint at a ct or a conspiracy


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 21, 2014)

The very first eyewitness CBS had on is full of shit.

Gumbel asked Stuart how far from the top of the building the plane crashed and he said he couldn't tell. He said "it definitely wasn't the top half of the building.. etc"
How could he claim to have see _anything_ and be so wrong? He said both "it bounced off the building" and that he was able to actually "see something go into the building." AA11 hit the North tower between the 93rd and 99th floors. How could he have seen either without knowing it hit the top of the building. How could he not know it impacted near the top of the building even if he only saw the aftermath??

Curious why Gumbel can't see where the plane hit, the video shown for 3 minutes prior to him asking Stuart clearly shows the impact zone.

Stuart said he's on Thompson St. which at it's closest point is roughly 3/4 mile from the North tower.
It takes sound 5 seconds to travel 1 mile. It would have taken the "sort of a crashing sound" 3-5 seconds or more to get to him. He couldn't have "looked up quick enough to actually see something go into the building"

So how is it that 4 minutes after the crash some waiter who is roughly a mile from the tower ends up in a phone interview on CBS? He's not a particularly good witness to say the least.

The guy's story is so nonsensical one has to consider whether it's intentional.
It may not prove anything other than the fact that witnesses are willing to lie and the media is willing to air them.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> The very first eyewitness CBS had on is full of shit.
> 
> Gumbel asked Stuart how far from the top of the building the plane crashed and he said he couldn't tell. He said "it definitely wasn't the top half of the building.. etc"
> How could he claim to have see _anything_ and be so wrong? He said both "it bounced off the building" and that he was able to actually "see something go into the building." AA11 hit the North tower between the 93rd and 99th floors. How could he have seen either without knowing it hit the top of the building. How could he not know it impacted near the top of the building even if he only saw the aftermath??
> ...


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> The very first eyewitness CBS had on is full of shit...
> It may not prove anything other than the fact that witnesses are willing to lie and the media is willing to air them.



Woo. I hesitate to disturb the fantasy in your head but witnesses aren't always reliable. Nothing new about that. You offer nothing which supports your claim he was lying. Nothing new about that either.
He had just ear-witnessed what turned out to be a fast moving plane slamming into WTC1 and suddenly he was on a national media feed trying to gather his thoughts and express them and he sounded understandably confused.
So how does that prove ANYTHING other than the possible unreliability of a single observer's account? You are desperately grasping at straws to hang on to your thoroughly debunked conclusions. Hopefully you will awake from your dream and realize what others, like Mike Metzger, have:

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts 

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 21, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers.



What about the people who signed up with AE911TRUTH,
and ALL of those have been checked out to be totally for real,
there are licensed professional engineers, ( etc.... ) 
and really I don't care if your friendly local high school drop-out
makes a statement on the subject, its not rocket science to be able to see that the official story is a crock!


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 21, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers.
> ...


 
I don't know to what high school drop-out you refer and it doesn't require a rocket science degree to see that the alternate scenarios the "Truther" Movement has produced in 13 years are so ludicrous they have all but killed the goose that laid the 9/11 CT t-shirt and DVD golden egg. Yours are so off-the-wall even some in the Movement refer to them as the work of disinformationalists.


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Huge problem here, the reality of this whole scene is one of a gross cover-up,  ALL of the NIST, FEMA ( etc.... ) "reports" are white-wash jobs.  not to mention the fact that critical bits of data like that 2.25 sec of free fall for WTC7 constitute show-stoppers for the whole thing.  It is as if a spell of Black Magic was cast that caused millions of people to simply abandon logic and reason and go along with the official story no matter how strange it gets.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


the abandonment of logic !? that's fucking hilarious ...coming from the guy that claims there were no planes and no victims in them... 
*ull Definition of LOGIC*
1
a (1) *:*  a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration *:*  the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) *:*  a branch or variety of logic <modal _logic_> <Boolean _logic_> (3) *:*  a branch of semiotics; _especially_ *:* syntactics (4) *:*  the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

b (1) *:*  a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) *:* relevance, propriety

c *:*  interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable

* Definition of REASON*
1
a *:*  a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave_reasons_ that were quite satisfactory>

b *:*  a rational ground or motive <a good _reason_ to act soon>

c *:*  a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense;_especially_ *:*  something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the _reasons_ behind her client's action>

d *:*  the thing that makes some fact intelligible *:* cause <the_reason_ for earthquakes> <the real _reason_ why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2
a (1) *:*  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways *:* intelligence (2) *:*  proper exercise of the mind (3) *:* sanity

b *:*  the sum of the intellectual powers
nothing you've posted on the many sites you haunt comes near the above.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Oct 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> ...



Jewish Telegraphic Agency

And they add to the disgustingness:

"At least they spared us the jumpers."


----------



## SAYIT (Oct 22, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Interesting. The JTA article describes the costume as "...winners of the contest for Costume of Poorest Taste are definitely 7-year-old twins Ilay and Nehoray, who dressed up as the burning World Trade Center towers with the planes still in them on 9/11. At least they spared us the jumpers" while Iran's PressTV article claimed it proved "Israel has been wildly celebrating the success of its 9/11 operation against the United States of America." There's quite a chasm between the two POVs, don't you think? 
That you would agree with Iran's state media's outrageous Nazi-like canard says as much about you as it does about the Iranians.
Dime-a-dozen goose-steppers. Sieg Heil, Eva, Sieg Heil!


----------



## n0spam4me (Oct 24, 2014)

daws101 said:


> the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways



is it not orderly reasoning that one can observe the video of WTC7
"collapsing" and note that it is identical to a controlled demolition in so many ways, so the logical thing to ask is WHY then should the "collapse" be attributed to asymmetrical damaged & fire?

Simple ..... no?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 13, 2014)

toastman said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> ...


 the paid shills handlers sent him here to troll.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 13, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Yup, it's an inside job.


 love how the trolls like this one evade the facts when cornered and can only insult,predfan is a hypocrite troll.he goes around whining about being called names yet thats exactly what he is doing here when confronted with facts he cant refute.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 13, 2014)

Penelope said:


> No its on conspiracy forum, as it was a very well played out conspiracy.


 damn straight.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 13, 2014)

wihosa said:


> 911 was a black flag operation. It's so obvious that it was not carried out by 19 hijackers that I feel a little embarrassed for those who still believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.
> It took me a long time to come to grips witht the fact that elements of our own government were involved. Really changes you world view.


the sheople in america cant believe their government woudl do something like this to their own people so they cover their ears and eyes to the facts.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 13, 2014)

handjob is off his meds again......


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 13, 2014)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## Rank Your Leader (Nov 20, 2014)

We are still doing this? Good grief.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 20, 2014)

get used to it leader its just like the JFK assassination,something that will never go away.it gets talked  about more than JFK though cause its more recent.Like the JFK assassination,it wont go away because the majority around the country arent buying into the lies of this as they havent in the JFK assassiantion cause key facts are left out in the governments explanation and in both cases,it wont go away cause the facts of the case dont fit the explanation given by the government.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> No its on conspiracy forum, as it was a very well played out conspiracy.



Yes----the filth of your fellow islamo Nazi pigs was done with
determination and expertise on  9-11-01----- the death toll is but a drop in the bucket of your total of  HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS  over the past 1700 years and counting.  
I notice that your fellow islamo Nazi sluts are enjoying those
GLORIOUS FOR ALLAH  beheadings-------also ongoing


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 20, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > No its on conspiracy forum, as it was a very well played out conspiracy.
> ...


 
your zionest handlers are getting desperate the way they sent you here so quickly to troll this thread and  spew your b.s and lies.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



how long has this idiotic islamo Nazi thread been on the board-------it is beginning to get moldy-----and FINALLY  
I offered the very rare useful post-----the TRUTH----

btw ----where were you when your fellow islamo Nazi pigs slammed their stinking asses into the  WTC towers in honor of your pig "god"   allah?       I found  the celebrations of your fellows on Atlantic Avenue ----"interesting"--------despite the greater intensity of
the usual sweaty sock  stench emanating from the doors
of the fetid mosques


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 20, 2014)

an agent troll being paid to troll here by israel..im outta here.


----------



## Penelope (Nov 20, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I have no doubt who was behind it and even who the mastermind was.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> an agent troll being paid to troll here by israel..im outta here.




INSIDE-----where were you on 9-11-01?     Obviously you were not in the aircraft for allah ----------do not worry-----no one will blame you


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



I believe you-----no doubt you are very tight with the mastermind and your relationship with the murderers was
affectionate.       I just heard on the news that bombs are going off in Egypt------no doubt you know those bombers too


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


 there you go again,wasting your time on one of these  paid agent zionest trolls whose handlers are smiling cause they got you doing what they want you to do,wasting your time with them.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



to whom you addressing your concern about  "wasted time"???    what else would she be doing?    bomb on ass operations for   "allah"????


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

who is wasting whose time-----how much time does she need to strap a bomb to her stinking ass and blow herself to hell for the glory of allah?


----------



## MrDVS1 (Nov 20, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> 
> In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.
> 
> ...


 

Airplanes crashed into the twin towers and the holes in the building had the shape of an airplane. An airplane allegedly crashed into the pentagon and all that was left was a round hole, so why aren't the wings laying on the ground outside the building, How come the tail of the plane didn't break off when the plane slammed the ground, which it did before hitting the building and which is characteristic of passenger planes and if you doubt that just check what Capt. Sully Sullivan had to say about that regarding his crashing into Hudson River.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

MrDVS1 said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> ...



???     I was not there.    I did not see it-----but I did see the second plane hit the second WTC.    As to the shape of the hole------it might depend on WHEN the picture was taken ------maybe things were moved around.      My impression based on ----just memory is---that the plane hit the ground ---PART of it kinda flung itself into the building --------possibly the parts that broke off were removed for exam before the picture
was taken.     Why do you ask?      Do you think that
a senator chopped a hole in the pentagon wall and decided to blame the hole on a terrorist?


----------



## Penelope (Nov 20, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I don't buy into dumb theories, but this was just way too many "coincidences", and the right people all in the right places.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...


just like the jfk assassination.too many facts prove the GOVERNMENTS version is plain bullshit.like i said,the facts of the case dont fit the explanation given buy the government,hense the major controversy in both cases.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

Penelope said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > Penelope said:
> ...



really?        to just what "coincidences"  do you refer-------perhaps the fact that I was looking out of my living room window when the islamo Nazi pig plane happened to hit building two is  TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE??????           How do you define  
"coincidence"  in this situation?      Who were the "right"  people in the  "right" places-------the people who died? 
Do you ever make any attempt to  MAKE SENSE?


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




are you aware of the fact that you do not write in English?               Just what did the government  "buy"?----what does   "hense"   mean?.    What  "major
controversy"  ?       Have you ever seen a person dead because a bullet hit his head?


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

imagine ----WHATTA COINCIDENCE!!!!!!    bullet came out of gun and just happened to hit someone IN THE HEAD------whatta coincidence!!!!!!


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

still waiting~~~~~~~
  UHM   "too many coincidences"     "bullshit"   
     "I don't buy just any theory"     "I know who was
      behind it"       <<<<<    like the word salad of
      psychotics


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 20, 2014)

ASSERTION WITH CONFIDENCE>>>>>

I have no doubt who was behind it and even who the mastermind was.

_*Please check out my sources and posts and if you find a more reliable source or note an error in my post, please let me know, *_
***********************************************************'

OK-----so tell me----who was behind it and who was the mastermind and------of course-----supply your 
sources*


----------



## daws101 (Nov 20, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


handjob is a side show around here .toss him some peanuts and laugh, that's all he's good for.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 20, 2014)

MrDVS1 said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> ...


----------



## wihosa (Nov 21, 2014)

Yes this shit again. It's not going away because the the lie of the Official Conspiracy Theory is so obvious. Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition. 

The list of obvious lies include BBC reporting the collapse of B7 BEFORE it happened, the world's most heavily defended building ( the Pentagon) not defending itself, hijackers who could barley fly a Piper Cub piloting a commercial airliner in a 7000 foot dive through a 270degree turn flying low enough to knock down light poles but not touch the ground then vanishing entirely through a fifteen foot hole in the side of the Pentagon which is two foot thick steel reinforced concrete, FBI agents "finding" a highjackers paper passport in the dust of the the twin towers the next day but not his or any other hijackers body, no plane at the "crash site" in Shanksville, no pancaked floors at the bottom of the twin towers not even the steel floor pans on which the concrete was poured - all the concrete and steel floor pans turned to dust, not a single interceptor jet responded to four commercial airliners being hijacked and making U-turns in the sky, cell phone calls made from airliners when at the time it was not possible. 

These are some of the most obvious off the top of my head for which there is no believable explanation.

Everyone who believes the OCT is a conspiracy theorist because the theory was never proven in a court so it remains a theory. 

Everyone who defends this theory and resists a new independent investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power is self delusional, a foolish dupe or working to continue the cover up and protect the mass murderers.

Only a real investigation can restore Americas honor and our place as the defenders of liberty and justice. Examine the evidence but resist theorizing, only a prosecutor with subpoena power in a court of law can determine fact.

We have been living a lie these past thirteen years, demand a REAL investigation!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 21, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Yes this shit again. It's not going away because the the lie of the Official Conspiracy Theory is so obvious. Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition.
> 
> The list of obvious lies include BBC reporting the collapse of B7 BEFORE it happened, the world's most heavily defended building ( the Pentagon) not defending itself, hijackers who could barley fly a Piper Cub piloting a commercial airliner in a 7000 foot dive through a 270degree turn flying low enough to knock down light poles but not touch the ground then vanishing entirely through a fifteen foot hole in the side of the Pentagon which is two foot thick steel reinforced concrete, FBI agents "finding" a highjackers paper passport in the dust of the the twin towers the next day but not his or any other hijackers body, no plane at the "crash site" in Shanksville, no pancaked floors at the bottom of the twin towers not even the steel floor pans on which the concrete was poured - all the concrete and steel floor pans turned to dust, not a single interceptor jet responded to four commercial airliners being hijacked and making U-turns in the sky, cell phone calls made from airliners when at the time it was not possible.
> 
> ...


agent irosies handlers are getting worried the truth is being put out the fact they sent him here to shit all over the place and fart here FIVE times  in a row on this page alone!!!


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 21, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Yes this shit again. It's not going away because the the lie of the Official Conspiracy Theory is so obvious. Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition.
> 
> The list of obvious lies include BBC reporting the collapse of B7 BEFORE it happened, the world's most heavily defended building ( the Pentagon) not defending itself, hijackers who could barley fly a Piper Cub piloting a commercial airliner in a 7000 foot dive through a 270degree turn flying low enough to knock down light poles but not touch the ground then vanishing entirely through a fifteen foot hole in the side of the Pentagon which is two foot thick steel reinforced concrete, FBI agents "finding" a highjackers paper passport in the dust of the the twin towers the next day but not his or any other hijackers body, no plane at the "crash site" in Shanksville, no pancaked floors at the bottom of the twin towers not even the steel floor pans on which the concrete was poured - all the concrete and steel floor pans turned to dust, not a single interceptor jet responded to four commercial airliners being hijacked and making U-turns in the sky, cell phone calls made from airliners when at the time it was not possible.
> 
> ...


So then. How were the towers brought down?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 21, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Yes this shit again. It's not going away because the the lie of the Official Conspiracy Theory is so obvious. Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition.
> 
> The list of obvious lies include BBC reporting the collapse of B7 BEFORE it happened, the world's most heavily defended building ( the Pentagon) not defending itself, hijackers who could barley fly a Piper Cub piloting a commercial airliner in a 7000 foot dive through a 270degree turn flying low enough to knock down light poles but not touch the ground then vanishing entirely through a fifteen foot hole in the side of the Pentagon which is two foot thick steel reinforced concrete, FBI agents "finding" a highjackers paper passport in the dust of the the twin towers the next day but not his or any other hijackers body, no plane at the "crash site" in Shanksville, no pancaked floors at the bottom of the twin towers not even the steel floor pans on which the concrete was poured - all the concrete and steel floor pans turned to dust, not a single interceptor jet responded to four commercial airliners being hijacked and making U-turns in the sky, cell phone calls made from airliners when at the time it was not possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## wihosa (Nov 21, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Yes this shit again. It's not going away because the the lie of the Official Conspiracy Theory is so obvious. Building 7 was obviously controlled demolition.
> ...



Very good question! Why not have a real investigation and find out. Let's put people under oath, let's have a trial. I still believe in the American justice system. I think a special prosecutor with subpoena power can in a court of law determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Think about it, the greatest crime in our nations history and no one was tried, no one convicted?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 21, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Nice dodge. You claim the official story is bogus so man up and say what _you_ believe transpired and who is responsible.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



what did 9/11 benefit the US?


----------



## Capstone (Nov 22, 2014)

Can't sleep. 



wihosa said:


> ...I still believe in the American justice system. ...



I still have some faith in the criminal investigative aspect of the AJS; it's the judicial aspect that would worry me. That part of the American justice system has been so badly compromised in favor of the sort of individuals that might stand under the umbrella of '_likely suspects_', mostly by bought-and-paid-for legislators and high-level adjudicators going back at least a few decades, that some degree of international involvement would probably be needed to lend legitimacy to the proceedings (yes, even in the eyes of many Americans).

In case you haven't heard, something big may soon be coming down the pipeline. On August 4th of this year, a former senator came out publicly with criticism of the 19 hijackers story and further said that hither-to classified 9/11 information may soon be declassified. On the very same day, *C-Span* aired a 40 minute interview/Q&A segment with Richard Gage, during which the vast majority of the callers expressed their doubts about the official narrative, as well. 

More details and commentary about these important events can be found here.

An excerpt:



> [. . .] If this is the case, then our theory on what Congress is about to release about 9/11 will show a mostly fake Saudi Arabia connection, with a few fall guys in the Bush administration, orchestrated as a semi-”inside job” that will so infuriate and obsess the US populace that any evidence Putin releases will be lost in the noise as the US begins to go on war footing against Saudi Arabia, creating another war and further distracting the public and furthering the tentacles of the US empire in the Middle East. ...



Understanding the true nature of the usurper government of Fraudi Arabia, which can easily be seen in light of its strangely Zionist-friendly stances and activities in recent years, I personally see no reason to doubt that it played an important role on 9/11/01. Scapegoating and attacking the entire Saudi populace, though, would do nothing but further play into the hands of some of the very same scumbags who brought us 9/11.

Keep all of this in mind in the coming weeks and months.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 22, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Oh I should man up and speculate as to who did what and why. Thats ridiculous, it's enough to say the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie, which apparently you foolishly believe. The OCT is an obvious lie. I'm calling for a new investigation, what about you, are you man enough to have your belief tested in a court of law?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 22, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Another good question


----------



## wihosa (Nov 22, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Can't sleep.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I have heard. As with so much to do with 911 it's hard to distinguish between information and dis- information. I watched the Richard Gage interview, the first crack in the media blackout. Even this site we are restricted to the conspiracy theories forum, which I'm OK with because the OCT is just that a conspiracy theory.
I like AE911 Truth because they don't speculate, they stick to what is demonstrably true and call for an independent investigation.

When at last there is an investigation by a special prosecutor armed with subpoena power we will probably all be shocked at who is involved. It seems impossible that there was not inside help in the plot, people within our own government and within the media ... Speculating though only plays into the hands of those perpetrating the cover up, they can accuse you of wearing a tin foil hat and such.

Demand a real investigation!


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 22, 2014)

To address the bit in post #81, the original BS is the official story, that is the gigantic load of unsupported assertions that allege 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and managed to crash 3 into buildings.  However, once the BS has been accepted by the AMERICAN public, its an up-hill battle to assert the facts here.
One very relevant fact is that none of the 4 airliners has ever been accounted for by way of the wreckage, we have pictures of bits that are alleged to be aircraft wreckage belonging to the flights, but no actual forensic identification of the bits.
In the case of other aircraft disasters, the wreckage is examined for serial numbers so as to define exactly what aircraft they are dealing with, assumptions will not do, anybody who states anything like "obviously it was the wreckage of FLT*"  doesn't get it.  Where is the PROOF?  that is the proof that any of the 4 aircraft existed at all?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


kinda impossible because they are all dead. Have been for 13 years.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


can't have an investigation without some proof .
what you are calling for is a witch hunt.
as to an investigation you do realize that none of the so called  for truth groups could participate  due to conflict of interest laws.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 22, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> To address the bit in post #81, the original BS is the official story, that is the gigantic load of unsupported assertions that allege 19 fanatics hijacked 4 airliners and managed to crash 3 into buildings.  However, once the BS has been accepted by the AMERICAN public, its an up-hill battle to assert the facts here.
> One very relevant fact is that none of the 4 airliners has ever been accounted for by way of the wreckage, we have pictures of bits that are alleged to be aircraft wreckage belonging to the flights, but no actual forensic identification of the bits.
> In the case of other aircraft disasters, the wreckage is examined for serial numbers so as to define exactly what aircraft they are dealing with, assumptions will not do, anybody who states anything like "obviously it was the wreckage of FLT*"  doesn't get it.  Where is the PROOF?  that is the proof that any of the 4 aircraft existed at all?


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 22, 2014)

in response to a question about how is it proven that the airliners existed at all
the opposition posts a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson .... still waiting for that proof.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 22, 2014)

> realize that none of the so called for truth groups could participate due to conflict of interest laws.



Please cite the law and why different 9/11 truth groups could not offer up evidence?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Who is all dead?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 22, 2014)

daws101 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Pretty wimpy! 
First off all that's needed for a trial is evidence. After evidence is tested in a court of law it is distilled into what is fact and what is fiction. Facts thus discovered are proof.
How is a legal investigation a witch hunt? I'm talking about following the evidence where it leads. Why are you so afraid of this? If your conspiracy theory is so certain the it will be proven. Or are you afraid your ox may be gored? Truth groups don't have to be involved, prosecutors know how to examine evidence, that's what they are trained to do.
You do understand that there is no statute of limitations on murder, right?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Pretty whimpy. You would be satisfied with no findings that didn't validate the silliness in your head.
That said, I have no objection to a new investigation provided the finding of some sunstantive evidence that the official story is a lie or that WTC7 was a controlled demo or that there was a gov't cover-up of the truth or that something other than 3 passenger jets hit the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11. As it is, 13 years after the attack the only options to the official findings are so far-fetched as to leave the official report the only _plausible_ explanation. So ... do you have any evidence of anything other than those provided by the NIST investigation or the 9/11 Commission?


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 22, 2014)

> the official report the only _plausible_ explanation.



NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

The above quoted from the AE911TRUTH page,   There are a LOT of reasons to doubt the official explanation of the events of 9/11/2001.  Check this out, it has been around for a while > 
The evidence that WTC7 fell in the manner that it did and that WTC1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed is VERY compelling evidence in-and-of itself.
The fact that the alleged airliners were never accounted for, where & when was any inventory of aircraft bits done?  Was it documented that anybody conducted scientific tests for explosives or explosive residue, and if so, where are those documents?
The fact that there are HUGE voids in what should have been standard post disaster procedures speaks volumes!


----------



## Capstone (Nov 22, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Yes, I have heard. As with so much to do with 911 it's hard to distinguish between information and dis- information. ...



Senator Graham's comments are in the public domain, as are reports of the bipartisan resolution co-written and formally introduced in late 2013 by Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Steven Lynch, which calls for Pres. Obama to declassify information that reportedly implicates high-level Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

The *highly irregular* Gage interview on C-Span is also a matter of verifiable fact.



wihosa said:


> ...I watched the Richard Gage interview, the first crack in the media blackout. ...



Such "cracks" in the western mainstream don't just happen organically; some number of media bigwigs had to sign-off on that programming content, and the only thing _speculative_ about that revolves around the question as to what may have motivated them to do so.



wihosa said:


> ...I like AE911 Truth because they don't speculate, they stick to what is demonstrably true and call for an independent investigation. ...



I've long admired and in some ways emulated Gage's approach, myself, but, as domestic and geopolitical events have transpired over the past 13 years, I've grown more comfortable with some degree of speculation, so long as it's based on 'the facts on the ground'.



wihosa said:


> ...Speculating though only plays into the hands of those perpetrating the cover up, *they can accuse you of wearing a tin foil hat and such.* ...



That's just par for the course, much in the same way that anyone critical of the Zionist influence on US foreign policy is automatically labeled an 'anti-Semite'. I don't allow baseless accusations and childish name-calling to shape my opinions/methods, ...and neither should you.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 22, 2014)

> I've long admired and in some ways emulated Gage's approach, myself, but, as domestic and geopolitical events have transpired over the past 13 years, I've grown more comfortable with some degree of speculation, so long as it's based on 'the facts on the ground'.



Just my position on speculation,  note that there is a LOT of evidence that doesn't need any speculation at all, the fact of the "collapse" events of WTC1, 2 & 7  +  the fact that the airliner crashes ( or should I say alleged airliner crashes ) into the WTC towers could not possibly be as alleged by the mainstream media, the argument that "OH BUT THE PLANES WERE GOING SOOOO FAST" is totally without merit in this discussion, the plane shaped gashes just like in RoadRunner cartoons is proof plenty that AMERICA is being lied to about this whole scene.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 23, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> ...there is a LOT of evidence that doesn't need any speculation at all, the fact of the "collapse" events of WTC1, 2 & 7  +  the fact that the airliner crashes ( or should I say alleged airliner crashes ) into the WTC towers could not possibly be as alleged by the mainstream media, the argument that "OH BUT THE PLANES WERE GOING SOOOO FAST" is totally without merit in this discussion, the plane shaped gashes just like in RoadRunner cartoons is proof plenty that AMERICA is being lied to about this whole scene.



Please, don't tell me you're a _no-planer_ !

Whether the aircraft deployed on 9/11 were actually hijacked passenger jets or remotely flown military planes/drones (as the famous footage of the undercarriage of the second impacter would seem to indicate), there were, *almost certainly*, aircraft used in the operation. This is borne out by a huge body of eyewitness testimonies, *live* television coverage of the second impact (which I saw with my own eyes on the day of the travesty), and a good bit of circumstantial evidence, such as the confusion-fomenting air defense drills and operations that had a good many interceptors playing war games with the Ruskies in freakin' Alaska on that fateful morning (which would not have been a necessary component of a black operation that _didn't_ involve the use of aircraft otherwise far more vulnerable to US air defense systems). They might not have been (and probably weren't) the flights we were told they were, but the evidence strongly suggests that airplanes _were_ used in the false flag attack.

You're right about the visible nature of the three "collapses" caught on tape in NYC. To the least bit discerning eye, the videos alone are quite damning to the official explanation, to say nothing of numerous highly credible eyewitness accounts of belt-like, demolition-style explosions, ETC.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 23, 2014)

Capstone said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > ...there is a LOT of evidence that doesn't need any speculation at all, the fact of the "collapse" events of WTC1, 2 & 7  +  the fact that the airliner crashes ( or should I say alleged airliner crashes ) into the WTC towers could not possibly be as alleged by the mainstream media, the argument that "OH BUT THE PLANES WERE GOING SOOOO FAST" is totally without merit in this discussion, the plane shaped gashes just like in RoadRunner cartoons is proof plenty that AMERICA is being lied to about this whole scene.
> ...



Given  that there may have been ( and I stress MAY HAVE BEEN )
something flying that morning that would give witness the impression that an airliner crashed into the WTC tower(s) however the whole hijacked airliner fiasco is a non-starter for a LOT of reasons.  

anyhow, you & I can agree upon the fact that the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7 adds up to damning evidence that there is something going on here that is NOT the product of Islamic Religious Fanatics who hate our freedoms.  Though quite probably the real perpetrators of the events of 9/11/2001 do indeed hate our freedoms.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 23, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Ok, here's suBstansive evidence - Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration for over two seconds (NIST has admitted this fact). In case you don't grasp the implication of this fact it means all the supporting columns were severed at precisely the same moment. An impossible occurance by accident. That is suBstansive evidence that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie since according to NIST B7 collapsed due to "normal office fires". No one anywhere has conducted an experiment by which hundreds of structural steel connections failed at the same time due to hydrocarbon fires (normal office fires).
Now take your Official Conspiracy Theory and throw it in the trash because it's garbage.
You my friend are the one who is wearing the tin foil hat!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 23, 2014)

Capstone said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have heard. As with so much to do with 911 it's hard to distinguish between information and dis- information. ...
> ...



All good points and it's hard not to speculate. All I'm saying is when arguing with the uninitiated it's better to stick to the undeniable lies contained in the Offiical Conspiracy Theory.
It seems most certain that elements of our government and the media were involved but without testimony under oath it's hard to tell who may have been active participants and who were simply dupes or intimidated into silence.


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 24, 2014)

wihosa said:


> In case you don't grasp the implication of this fact it means all the supporting columns were severed at precisely the same moment.


That's a lie.

Why did the penthouse collapse into the building first? Try again.


----------



## Bush92 (Nov 24, 2014)

Here is what what happened on 9-11. Some terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. End of story.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Nov 24, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Here is what what happened on 9-11. Some terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. End of story.


for someone who has Bush as his avatar ,we would expect no less from you. another government paid shill that has penetrated this site obviously.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 24, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > In case you don't grasp the implication of this fact it means all the supporting columns were severed at precisely the same moment.
> ...


 
Indeed fully 13 YEARS after the 9/11 attack on America all the "Truther" Movement has is the same old lies. One must wonder what is their agenda (other than t-shirt and DVD sales) and why the DEATH THREATS and false accusations from the Movement when this ex-"Truther" told the truth:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong. I was the new Stalin. The poster boy for a mad movement.” - Charlie Veitch


----------



## wihosa (Nov 24, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > In case you don't grasp the implication of this fact it means all the supporting columns were severed at precisely the same moment.
> ...



What's that supposed to prove?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 24, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Here is what what happened on 9-11. Some terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. End of story.




What about Building 7? No plane flew into it.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



What lie?


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 24, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what what happened on 9-11. Some terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. End of story.
> ...



It was severely damaged by parts of other buildings which collapsed on it and the ensuing fires. What are you suggesting happened to WTC 7?
7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 24, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



That something other than the damage caused by hijacked airliners destroyed the WTC buildings.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 24, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...



NIST said collapsed from "normal office fires". Are you saying NIST is lying?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


That you truthers have to distort the facts to make your conspiracies work. That's just one example.

The penthouse collapsing first makes your claim the "all the supporting columns were severed at the same moment" completely false.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



No, I'm saying YOU are lying. Here is what NIST actually said:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building...
WTC Disaster Study

...and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon...
The collapse {of the North Tower} also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41...
WTC Disaster Study

So again I ask you what you are suggesting happened to WTC7 that caused it to collapse?


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > realize that none of the so called for truth groups could participate due to conflict of interest laws.
> 
> 
> 
> Please cite the law and why different 9/11 truth groups could not offer up evidence?


Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation occurring when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation.
why 9/11 groups can not participate in an investigation in a nut shell
they can present "evidence" but cannot investigate said evidence  the reason why is obvious.
learn to read.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > the official report the only _plausible_ explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a&e for truth is not  CREDIBLE

Trolling An AE 911 Truth Member
Meet one of the very few structural engineers for AE 9/11 truth, Charles N. Pegelow. He receives a call from a man asking about what he could present as the best piece of evidence they have for the inside job theory. Mr Pegelow starts at around 4:00 minutes to present what he feels is the best piece of evidence. 


He states the following," There was 100,00lbs of steel missing and you have to ask the question where did it go." he then proceeds to explain how the steel simply EVAPORATED and it was accomplished by using, in his own words, "a pineapple sized nuclear bomb that melted out the insides."


Later on he dances around the question when asked in another call and he then admits that he hasnt told Gage about his idea because people find it "crazy". 


So to top off this post, the petition and group he has associated himself with doesnt believe what Mr. Pegelow believes. Is it the truth they are searching for or just more people with credentials to sign their petition ? Also, if this is what truthers consider as credible source then maybe they lack the understanding of what credible truly means.

Read more at 

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available





Embedded media from this media site is no longer available



THE VIDEO IS A HOOT!


----------



## wihosa (Nov 25, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Ridiculous, watch the building fall after the penthouse portion the entire structure moves  straight down at free fall acceleration, which means that there was zero resistance to load - all the columns were severed.

Sorry but physics says your theory, the Official Conspiracy Theory is a pile of crap.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 25, 2014)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > the official report the only _plausible_ explanation.
> ...



Your a hoot! AE911 Truth has over 2000 licensed Architects and Engineers, very few indeed. Don't forget these professionals have put their careers and good names on the line by signing the petition.

As for Mr. Pegelow, he made the mistake of speculating, something that Richard Gage does not engage in. But it is a plausible explanation, suitcase nukes do exist.

Why don't you explain how all the concrete floors turned to dust. Not broken concrete but dust. And don't try the bull about the pancaking effect because the steel floor pans are gone too. The floor pans are corrugated steel upon which the concrete floors are poured. Even if the concrete could entirley turn to dust, which it can't, where did the floor pans go? If the Official Conspiracy Theory is true and the floors pancaked turning the concrete to dust there should be a stack of floor pans. There isn't. 

I don't speculate, I just point out how completely ridiculous the Official Conspiracy Theory is. This is why we need a real investigation.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > the official report the only _plausible_ explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hold it right there. Some weeks ago you posted your silly pseudoscience here and when it was challenged by Gamo, you ran away ... TWICE. Your credibility - or what passed for it - left with you both times and has yet to return. You are a poster boy for what killed your 9/11 "Truther" Movement, Princess: half-truths, misrepresentations, outright fabrications and general punkiness. You are dismissible and dismissed.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
"There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?
The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are 'in on it.' Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to 'pull' Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular 'facts' to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, 'the firefighters are paid off.' "


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Why after the penthouse? Is it because it refutes your claim?

You said ALL SUPPORTS WERE SEVERED AT PRECISELY THE SAME TIME did you not? If that's the case, then why did the penthouse fall into the building a full 6 or 7 seconds sooner than the rest of the building???

Are you retracting your claim or adjusting it? Which one?


----------



## Gamolon (Nov 25, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > the official report the only _plausible_ explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why have you not addressed the mistakes and falsehoods pointed out to you regarding your "understanding" of physics? You've been asked several times. VERY telling.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 25, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



false everything you post is erroneous speculation.
saying that this actual story is  a conspiracy is speculation.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 26, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Oh brother, you are really clutching at straws, obviously the upper columns supporting the penthouse were severed first causing the penthouse to collapse first. This was probably done to help control the demolition, keeping the collapse within the footprint of the building.
Regardless, this in no way changes the fact that the building collapsed at free fall acceleration thereafter. Free fall means no resistance to load, hence all supporting columns were severed simultaneously.

The penthouse collapsing first in no way changes what I said. If you think it does explain it, rather than saying it went first as if there is some significance to that fact. There isn't! And by the way, your Official Conspiracy Theory is still a heaping pile of crap!


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Just so I clearly understand you: Are you saying that rather than the structural damage done by large chunks of the North Tower and hours of chaotic fires causing 7's collapse, a demo crew (of hundreds) slipped into the building and rigged it for a PERFECT, free-fall CD while chaotic fires raged? Perhaps you, like Dr. James Fetzer (PhD - history and philosophy of science) think mini-nukes that had undetectable explosions were used? Woo ... talk about steaming piles of CT crap.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 27, 2014)

Some OCTers claim that the penthouse's "collapse" a few seconds prior to the onset of the main roof-line's symmetrical descent is evidence of the near complete removal of interior structural support, leaving nothing but the outer shell to bear its own weight, and that this explains the two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration *admitted by NIST*. Even granting the laughable notion that the building's 'facade' (as some have erroneously called it) could have stood entirely intact as its steel skeleton was taken out _progressively_ by office fires, the bigger problem with their obfuscatory bullshit is that the bearing walls themselves were composed of physical building materials (primarily concrete) that couldn't possibly have pulverized themselves without creating resistance in their own right. In line with NIST's explanation, the outer shell descended against zero resistance for an  estimated 100+ sq. ft. (or approximately 8 floors), and that in itself is reason enough to reject their findings. Any report that would have us suspend faith in the laws of physics isn't worth the paper on which it was written.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 27, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Some OCTers claim that the penthouse's "collapse" a few seconds prior to the onset of the main roof-line's symmetrical descent is evidence of the near complete removal of interior structural support, leaving nothing but the outer shell to bear its own weight, and that this explains the two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration *admitted by NIST*. Even granting the laughable notion that the building's 'facade' (as some have erroneously called it) could have stood entirely intact as its steel skeleton was taken out _progressively_ by office fires, the bigger problem with their obfuscatory bullshit is that the bearing walls themselves were composed of physical building materials (primarily concrete) that couldn't possibly have pulverized themselves without creating resistance in their own right. In line with NIST's explanation, the outer shell descended against zero resistance for an  estimated 100+ sq. ft. (or approximately 8 floors), and that in itself is reason enough to reject their findings. Any report that would have us suspend faith in the laws of physics isn't worth the paper on which it was written.



Just so I clearly understand you: Are you saying that rather than the structural damage done by large chunks of the North Tower and hours of chaotic fires causing 7's collapse, a demo crew (of hundreds) slipped into the building and rigged it for a PERFECT, free-fall CD while chaotic fires raged? Perhaps you, like Dr. James Fetzer (PhD - history and philosophy of science) think silent mini-nukes were used?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



No that's not what I'm saying, obviously there would not be time on that day to prepare a building for controlled demolition. Therefore it was prepared beforehand. But at least your are now admitting that it was in fact a perfect free fall controlled demolition.
And yes I'm saying it is total BS that B7 was brought down by "normal office fires" as claimed by NIST.
I don't know what Dr. Fetzer thinks, and it doesn't matter. You are the one with the Official Conspiracy Theory to defend, so where is your proof?
The OCT is an obvious lie, that is why I'm calling for a real investigation. What about you, what are you afraid of?


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Some OCTers claim that the penthouse's "collapse" a few seconds prior to the onset of the main roof-line's symmetrical descent is evidence of the near complete removal of interior structural support, leaving nothing but the outer shell to bear its own weight, and that this explains the two and a quarter seconds worth of gravitational acceleration *admitted by NIST*. Even granting the laughable notion that the building's 'facade' (as some have erroneously called it) could have stood entirely intact as its steel skeleton was taken out _progressively_ by office fires, the bigger problem with their obfuscatory bullshit is that the bearing walls themselves were composed of physical building materials (primarily concrete) that couldn't possibly have pulverized themselves without creating resistance in their own right. In line with NIST's explanation, the outer shell descended against zero resistance for an  estimated 100+ sq. ft. (or approximately 8 floors), and that in itself is reason enough to reject their findings. Any report that would have us suspend faith in the laws of physics isn't worth the paper on which it was written.



Not to mention the fact that NIST refuses to release the data used to form their computer model showing how this could be possible based on the claim that it could endanger public safety. Really? It's beyond credulity!

The whole Official Conspiracy Theory is a pile of crap and it is upon all the conspiracy theorists who believe it to prove it.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 27, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Just so I clearly understand you: Are you saying that rather than the structural damage done by large chunks of the North Tower and hours of chaotic fires causing 7's collapse, a demo crew (of hundreds) slipped into the building and rigged it for a PERFECT, free-fall CD while chaotic fires raged? ...



Well, just so I clearly understand _you_, is there some reason the distinct possibility that all three buildings were wired in the weeks and months leading up to 9/11/01 ...should be automatically precluded? 

We know there were questions surrounding the company that provided security to the WTC complex; we know, as well, that a major renovation to the elevator systems in buildings 1 and 2 had recently been completed; so who's to say whether or not such access to building 7's interior columns might have been similarly granted to a team of misidentified _workmen_ and their supplies shortly before 9/11?

If we're talking about _plausibility_ here, the scenario I've alluded to above is *infinitely more plausible* than accepting that the laws of physics not only can be but apparently _were_ violated during the _progressive collapse_ of building 7. 



SAYIT said:


> ...Perhaps you, like Dr. James Fetzer (PhD - history and philosophy of science) think silent mini-nukes were used?



No, the physical evidence for military-grade incendiaries (as discovered and explicated several years ago by the likes of Farrer, Jones, and Harrit) is strong enough, in my opinion, to justify my beliefs that the buildings were wired in advance and that the plane crashes were collectively more a smokescreen than anything else.


----------



## wihosa (Nov 27, 2014)

Micro spheres of iron in all the samples of dust have yet to be explained by the OCT defenders.
Military grade nano thermite explains the iron microspheres though.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 28, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


prepared before hand ?
would have been a neat trick if it were not total fantasy.
besides all logistic problems.
there is the slight problem of the damage from wtc1 which would have  destroyed the necessary charges /thermite / thermite / chewing gum.
that would have caused to collapse by use of explosives..
the biggest hole in your Swiss cheese of a "theory" is the why...


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 28, 2014)

Capstone said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Just so I clearly understand you: Are you saying that rather than the structural damage done by large chunks of the North Tower and hours of chaotic fires causing 7's collapse, a demo crew (of hundreds) slipped into the building and rigged it for a PERFECT, free-fall CD while chaotic fires raged? ...
> ...



The "distinct possibility" you speak of is nothing more than your vivid imagination run amok. For instance, how would that wiring have survived the plane impact and the chaotic fires that ensued and how could the planners have known exactly what of their demo charges would have still worked an hour after the impact? The world's leading demo guy said while watching on TV he tried to imagine how he would demo what might be left after 9/11 ... he had no idea.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 28, 2014)

wihosa said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Just so I clearly understand you: Are you saying that rather than the structural damage done by large chunks of the North Tower and hours of chaotic fires causing 7's collapse, a demo crew (of hundreds) slipped into the building and rigged it for a PERFECT, free-fall CD while chaotic fires raged? Perhaps you, like Dr. James Fetzer (PhD - history and philosophy of science) think mini-nukes that had undetectable explosions were used? Woo ... talk about steaming piles of CT crap.
> ...



Please quote something from my post in which I admit any of the WTC buildings collapsed in "a perfect free fall controlled demolition."


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

> the biggest hole in your Swiss cheese of a "theory" is the why.



First & foremost, it is necessary to define what we see on the videos, and then and only then after having the what nailed down do we even attempt to go & name suspects & ask WHY this was done. lets have this one step at a time.

The fact is that the fall of WTC7 was of such a nature that it would ONLY be possible as a consequence of an engineered event, since there are no photographs of the alleged damage to the south side of the building, its all speculation as to the exact nature of any damage that may have been done by rubble thrown off from the "collapsing" towers.

The argument that an airliner crashing into the tower would probably mess up a controlled demolition, so therefore it wasn't a controlled demolition, ignores the logic here, the fact that an aircraft crash would damage a controlled demolition set-up also points to the fact that there was no airliner crash.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 28, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> > the biggest hole in your Swiss cheese of a "theory" is the why.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the award for the best dodge in a thread goes to....


----------



## Capstone (Nov 28, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> . . .For instance, how would that wiring have survived the plane impact and the chaotic fires that ensued and how could the planners have known exactly what of their demo charges would have still worked an hour after the impact? ...



I meant "wired" at least partially in the figurative sense, although internal wiring may well have been used sufficiently below the predetermined impact zones. The latest remote detonation technology, well-placed 'cutter charges', and precision RC guidance of the aircraft/drones involved in the operation could've easily circumvented any such issue. 



SAYIT said:


> The world's leading demo guy said while watching on TV he tried to imagine how he would demo what might be left after 9/11 ... he had no idea.



Something tells me he'd have plenty ideas for the demos of those structures _before_ they were damaged primarily due to their general proximity to the three _collapsed_ skyscrapers on 9/11.


----------



## n0spam4me (Nov 28, 2014)

> Please quote something from my post in which I admit any of the WTC buildings collapsed in "a perfect free fall controlled demolition."



So you do not recognize the fact of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration for WTC7?
that is you disagree with the NIST report on the subject..... 
what?


----------



## Capstone (Nov 28, 2014)

...*and* unlike your preferred _conspiracy theory_, Sayit, no matter how wildly my vivid imagination had to run amok in order to spell-out the covert demo scenario, no long-established laws of physics had to be violated in the process.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 30, 2014)

Capstone said:


> ...*and* unlike your preferred _conspiracy theory_, Sayit, no matter how wildly my vivid imagination had to run amok in order to spell-out the covert demo scenario, no long-established laws of physics had to be violated in the process.


false no laws of physics were changed violated or fucked with on 911.
no matter how much you wish it to be so.


----------



## Capstone (Nov 30, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ...no laws of physics were changed violated or fucked with on 911. ...



Wholeheartedly agreed!

Now go tell it to the government's science lackeys at NIST.



daws101 said:


> ...no matter how much you wish it to be so.



There you go again claiming to know my desires. 

As I've told you in the past, generally speaking, *I want nothing more* than to believe something other than I presently do about the events of 9/11/01, but my beliefs have never been the fruition of personal preference, no matter how many more times you try to imply otherwise.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 30, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...no laws of physics were changed violated or fucked with on 911. ...
> ...


sorry only part of my post is on screen .
the other part was in this instance I agree with capstone .
AS TO NIST they followed all the protocols.


----------



## daws101 (Nov 30, 2014)

h
*6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report*
*Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md.*
By Arianne Cohen


August 21, 2008 12:00 AM
[URL='http://www.popularmechanics.com/911-myths']
	
 *Introduction* Background | Podcast | Book | FAQ | Sources
*The Planes* Where's The Pod? | No Stand-Down Order | Flight 175's Windows | Intercepts Not Routine
*The World Trade Center* Widespread Damage | "Melted" Steel | Puffs of Dust | Seismic Spikes | WTC 7 Collapse
*The Pentagon* Big Plane, Small Holes | Intact Windows | Flight 77 Debris
*Flight 93* The White Jet | Roving Engine | Indian Lake | F-16 Pilot








(Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

*GAITHERSBURG, Maryland --* Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report, responded directly to many conspiracy claims here this morning at his press conference in NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Md., which was attended by mainstream media and a handful of conspiracy theorist media, including a representative from InfoWars.com, a Web site that puts forward9/11 conspiracy theories. Sunder specifically addressed conspiracy claims linked to WTC 7. "Before I tell you what we found, I'd like to tell you what we did not find," Sunder told reporters. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. The collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the buildings." 

Here is a summary of some common 9/11 conspiracy theory claims regarding WTC 7, along with NIST's response: 

*Claim:* "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
*NIST report and press conference:* Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns. 

*Claim:* The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
*NIST report and press conference:* Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not." 

*Claim:* The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
*NIST report and press conference:* Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet. 

Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely." 

*Claim:* At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
*NIST report and press conference:* The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire. 

*Claim:* The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
*NIST report and press conference:* Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day." 

*Claim:* Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
*NIST and press conference:* NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned. 

Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed." 



 *Introduction* Background | Podcast | Book | FAQ | Sources
*The Planes* Where's The Pod? | No Stand-Down Order | Flight 175's Windows | Intercepts Not Routine
*The World Trade Center* Widespread Damage | "Melted" Steel | Puffs of Dust | Seismic Spikes | WTC 7 Collapse
*The Pentagon* Big Plane, Small Holes | Intact Windows | Flight 77 Debris
*Flight 93* The White Jet | Roving Engine | Indian Lake | F-16 Pilot

ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/911-myths[/URL]


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.

Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.



How many of them were slammed by large passenger jets at hundreds of mph?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.
> ...



WTC7 didn't get hit by a plane.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.


 
Sooo ... you're saying the peeps at Pop Mechs were in on some 9/11 whitewash?Consider for a moment just how many would have to have been part of your CT from planning to execution to investigation to cover-up. Then consider that NO ONE has whispered a word. Remarkable, eh?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.
> ...



People have talked, and wound up dead. Barry Jennings is one of many examples.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


 
Sorry ... I didn't realize 7 was the subject. So how many of your skyscrapers were hit by large chunks of other buildings from hundreds of feet in the air?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



NIST says fire brought down the building, not debris damage. But they have no data to back up their position anyway. Many buildings suffered far worse damage. Take a look at the pics in the article I linked.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


 
Jennings offered no proof of a conspiracy. People die and Barry Jennings PASSED AWAY in 2008, seven years after 9/11 without providing any compelling evidence on the events of 9/11.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



He died just before he was about to testify under oath about what he saw. His account was corroborated by the other man in the building with him. Jennings death has never been explained. Someone claiming to be his son came onto a message board and said he died of cancer, but we have no way of authenticating that claim. His account contradicts official accounts and shows that there were explosions in the building before the towers collapsed. He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.


 
But you can't give any proof of a controlled CT on any of the WTC buildings which is where the "Truther" Movement runs into a wall. So what was Pop Mech's agenda?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > I am not saying Pop Mech was in on the conspiracy, but that article was a propaganda piece. The press does what the press does. Doesn't take much to push an agenda. But much of that article is factually incorrect, or simply doesn't address relevant material. I could give some examples I suppose.
> ...



Not their agenda really. They were just paid or instructed to put that story out there thats all. 

You don't have to prove a conspiracy to know that we were lied to.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



If you are claiming 9/11 was something other than the official findings, you will indeed need to post your proof. For instance, you just claimed Pop Mech was "just paid or instructed to put that story out" but you forgot to post your evidence for such an outrageous charge.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You believe everything you see in the media? lol. The article is bunk, and just regurgitates NISTs non-evidence.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Jennings death, 7 years after 9/11 proved nothing just as nothing he claimed during those 7 years proved a CD or a conspiracy.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



His account shows that there were explosives in the building, among other things.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Yet you offer nothing but your opinion in support of any of your claims.
Do I believe everything I see in the media?
Don't be childish. But the official findings are far more plausible than any of silly scenarios posed by the "Truther" Movement.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



I don't doubt there may have been explosions or what sounded to Jennings like explosions but he said nothing of - nor was there any evidence of - CD explosions. Keep in mind there were chaotic, unfought fires in WTC7. How do you propose the building was rigged for demo, by whom, for what purpose, and how did that rigging survive _hours_ of fires?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Nov 30, 2014)




----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.



So you buy into the silliness at those 9/11 CT websites? And you attempt to demean my media sources?

Consider, if you can, the agenda of _your_ sources. Then try to apply the same skepticism to them that you do to MS outlets like Pop Mech.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



NIST even admits they don't have any evidence to support their claim. The official findings are contradictory, unproven, or outright disproven.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed? 

There were not chaotic fires in WTC7. There were a few small fires. 

How did police know the building was about to collapse? How did the media know it was going to collapse, and reported that it had indeed collapsed, before it actually fell?

There is a lot of evidence indicating that the Twins were rigged to blow, so 7 would have been rigged in much the same way. Clandestinely. By who, for what reason? Well that's the multi-billion dollar question isn't it. But we can see who benefited from it.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > And many of the official findings have indeed been disproven. Heck, half of the hijackers turned up alive in other countries. So who really was on those planes? That's just one of hundreds of examples.
> ...



I dont' take ANY media source at its word. I do my own research. Sometimes the truth gets reported accurately. Sometimes not.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



That's the kind of half-truth that is the "backbone" (and the cancer) of the "Truther" Movement. There are no real comps which could be applied to 9/11 so computer models were created. The option being we would have to rebuild and recreate the attack to really know what happened but when we get down to it, Occam's Razor is your friend. When compared to the official findings of the events of 9/11, the "Truther" stories are downright silly.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Computer models show a controlled demolition. 

They claim fire brought down the building. Even though fire have never done that before or since. I was a firefighter. There is no way those few small fires brought down a steel building. 

The "official findings" are just a story, with no evidence to support it.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Outright lies. So what is your agenda? What are you trying to accomplish?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

Computer model:


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I don't have to accomplish anything. I already know we were lied to.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Your "facts" are contradicted by firefighter testimony and you have no idea what those fires looked like, how hot they were and what damage they did. You never explained how you believe those buildings were rigged and how the chaotic fires and structural damage did not destroy the rigging.


----------



## SAYIT (Nov 30, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Evidently you know only what the little voices in your head tell you. Loosen that foil hat a bit and let the blood flow again.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

> *NIST report and press conference:* Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.



Thermal expansion has never in history caused a steel building to collapse. But without any evidence, NIST says this caused 3 buildings to collapse on 9/11. Their solution is neither reasonable nor plausible.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Firefighter testimony is that there were only a few small pockets of fire in building 7. I know FFs who were there, I lost a fellow firefighter from my firehouse that day. 

It doesn't matter how hot the fires were or what damage they did. Fire does not bring down steel buildings. I don't have to explain how the buildings were rigged to know that fire does not bring down steel buildings. 

It's also quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning, considering that, as I said, the fires were minimal.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Nov 30, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I know what I learned from years of training and experience as a firefighter. fire does not bring down steel skyscrapers.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

> *Claim:* "No combination of debris damage, fuel-tank explosions and fires could inflict the kind of simultaneous damage to all the building's columns required to make the building implode," says WTC7.net, a Web site dedicated to conspiracy theories. "The precision of such damage required to bring Building 7 down into its footprint was especially great, given the ratio of its height to its width and depth."
> *NIST report and press conference:* Fire did indeed inflict enough column damage to destroy the building through a previously undocumented collapse sequence of thermal expansion. "Anyone who has run a tight jar lid under water to help loosen it knows that the metal expands when it gets hot," Sunder said. "Heat also causes steel to lose strength and stiffness. Thermal expansion occurs at temperatures much lower than those required to reduce steel strength and stiffness." The report found that as WTC 7's steel beams expanded in the heat, numerous structural connections throughout the building failed. That weakened the structure even before the collapse of any vertical columns.



"Thermal expansion" has never brought down any building before or since. Yet it supposedly happened three times in the same place on one single day. Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.

Fire does not cause steel buildings to collapse.










> *Claim:* The shape of the building's tidy pile of wreckage is consistent with a demolition, conspiracy theorists say.
> *NIST report and press conference:* Sunder agrees that the wreckage was tidy and explained why. "If you look at columns 79, 80 and 81 [three of the building's central columns], the floor area that they're carrying is very large--particularly column 79, which was carrying about 2000 sq. ft. of floor area." Column 79 was the first column to fail. "It was an interior column that failed, followed by two more interior columns [80 and 81], then east to west. So what you're seeing is an interior collapse, then to the outside. What you're getting is an impression of a controlled demolition, but it's not."



Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.

Telling us it wasn't a controlled demo is not evidence of anything one way or the other. Pretty coincidental though that the exact columns you would have to blow to do a proper implosion happen to be the exact ones which failed. 








> *Claim:* The way the building fell was caused by demolition or thermate. (Thermate is thermite mixed with sulfur and sometimes other chemicals, which produces brief but intense and highly localized incendiary effects.)
> *NIST report and press conference:* Sunder said that his team investigated these hypothetical causes and ruled them out. "We asked ourselves what is the minimum amount of charge we could use to bring the building down," he said. "And we found that even the smallest charge would release an extremely loud sound heard half a mile away." There were no reports of such a sound; numerous observers and video recordings found the collapse to be relatively quiet.






> Prominent conspiracy theorist Steven Jones and others have suggested that thermate could have been inserted into a column, exploding the column without the loud boom of a demolition. Sunder said his team considered that theory. "In order for the thermate reaction to melt steel to take place, there has to be materials. If you look at the amount needed--at least 100 pounds for one column--you need someone to get that amount in the building, and place it, and for the reaction to take place. It is unlikely."



"Unlikely" is an opinion, not a fact, and beyond the scope of NIST expertise.



> *Claim:* At the press conference, theorists questioned why NIST had just now found a previously undocumented cause of building collapse.
> *NIST report and press conference:* The particulars of WTC 7's design contributed to the thermal expansion. WTC 7 had floor spans up to 54 ft. long. "Longer beams can be subject to proportionally greater expansion effects," Sunder noted. "Other tall buildings have burned for as long or longer in similar fires without collapsing--when sprinklers either did not exist or were not functional. So we knew from the beginning of our study that understanding what happened to Building 7 on 9/11 would be difficult. It did not fit any textbook description that you could readily point to and say, yes, that's why the building failed." The issue, Sunder said, was that buildings are not typically tested for their structural response to fire.



Ah, there it is. The "unique structure" myth. Again, fire does not bring down steel buildings. Ever.



> *Claim:* The minimal wreckage available for later investigation has generated speculation. Some conspirators point to the fast removal of debris as evidence of a government coverup.
> *NIST report and press conference:* Compared to WTC 1 and 2, NIST had very little WTC 7 wreckage to study. The site was cleared quickly in a search-an- rescue effort, and much of the debris was transported to salvage yards. "There was no loss of life," Sunder noted. "In hindsight, we knew that the building was evacuated. But we didn't know that on that day." Hundreds of investigators at the salvage yards later found that the Twin Towers' steel columns were labeled and numbered, while the columns from Towers 5, 6 and 7 were not. "I am not surprised that there wasn't a lot of identifiable debris," Sunder said. "But at the time, we were concerned about terrorists who attacked our country and search and rescue. I think the fact that they [invesigators] didn't collect [wreckage] was the least important activity that happened that day."



So NIST is admitting that their own theory is not based on any tangible evidence. The rapid removal and destruction of evidence from the largest criminal act in history is certainly cause for concern.

The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.





> *Claim:* Many theorists have suggested that the long delay in an explanatory report is further proof of a government coverup.
> *NIST and press conference:* NIST first had to complete the investigation on the collapse of the Twin Towers and publish its report before turning to WTC 7. The Twin Towers report was released in September 2005. "We thought we might be able to do things much quicker and faster because of our tower experience," Sunder said. "I think we underestimated the amount of effort that would be required to answer the questions that we raised." In addition, new computer models of the collapse had to be created. "A typical fire simulation for a single floor of the building took up to two days with a state-of-the-art cluster of Linux computers. We had computer programs that took six to eight months to get a correct run, and we wanted to make sure we got this right. And three years is not an unusual length of time." Sunder emphasized that previous reports were preliminary and provisional. "We didn't have the insight that thermal expansion could have happened until early last year," Sunder said. "After that it was smooth sailing." Until last year, NIST was still investigating other hypotheses, including whether the building's location on top of an electric substation played a critical role and whether 6000 gal. of diesel fuel used to power backup generators in the building directly weakened the columns. Both hypotheses were abandoned.
> 
> Sunder classified the report's conclusions as "simple, straightforward, elegant and going along with what was observed. I would say that the findings we have are incredibly conclusive that fire is why WTC 7 collapsed."



In other words, they had no idea how to explain it, until they stumbled on the "thermal expansion" idea and ran with it.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Explained 10,000 times...

The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building.  The fires weakened the metal.  The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.  

As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Computer model:



I thought you said you did your own research?  Can we assume your name is David Chandler?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



The fires were not minimal, they raged for hours, and not only it is not "quite possible that the demo charges were not placed where fire was burning," the alleged charges would had to have been placed in specific locations and there was no way to predict where the fires would be.
Finally, you can't explain "how the buildings were rigged" because all "Truther" attempts to do so have been such embarrassing failures that the Movement has been abandoned by all but the DVD and t-shirt hawkers and the not-too-brights holding brooms.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.


Did a jet strike the tower causing the fire in 1970 or are you blatantly forgetting this piece of the puzzle. How much of the supporting structure was severed or damaged due to the impact of the jets? I suppose that had nothing to do with it right?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.


Can you point to Barry's account of the loss of life?

Thanks.

Oh, and before you point to the interview where Barry says he was stepping over bodies in the lobby, listen to the interview he had later. It's at 6:20 in the linked video below.

He admits he never SAW any dead bodies. He just assumed.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 1, 2014)

What fire in the  1970s?    the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
was in  1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
The car bomb,  itself----kinda fizzled----was not all that effective.   The WTC
fired want on at least  an hour and one half before the towers caved-----
I watched but I did not have a clock at hand


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> What fire in the  1970s?    the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
> was in  1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
> The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
> kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
> ...


I found this:



> On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the tower to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours. Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.Fireproofing protected the steel and there was no structural damage to the tower. In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th - 14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[20]



World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Explained 10,000 times...
> 
> The plane crash damaged the fire proofing on the metal inside the building.  The fires weakened the metal.  The buildings collapsed where they were supposed to have.
> 
> As for WTC7, the seismic events of two plane crashes and two building collapses set off the damage that consumed WTC7.



NIST says that is not true. They say fire was the only reason the building collapsed. They even ruled out some stuff underground and other factors. They pin it exclusively on fire damage, which is utter nonsense. Any firefighter can tell you that much. 

Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Computer model:
> ...



And that video was included in my research. Next.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



The fires certainly were minimal, and even if the whole building had been engulfed in flame, it STILL would NOT have collapsed. 

One of these things, is not like the others...











How were the buildings rigged? By clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel. 

Also, I know people who worked in Towers 1 and 2. They said that for about a month prior to 9/11, there was a thin layer of "construction dust" on everything throughout the building. Building maintenance workers also reported that floors were closed off inexplicably, and work crews were working in areas that were not scheduled for development at that time. On and on it goes.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Some claim that this was due to the "unique" structure of Towers 1 & 2, but ignore that fact that a fire in the 1970's in Tower 1 burned larger and longer with no structural failure.
> ...



No jet hit Building 7. Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously. Even if were are to believe the nonsense explanation that "both" reasons are why 1 & 2 fell, it still doesn't explain global collapse of the structures. The tops would have sheared off, at most.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > The notion that there was no loss of life in building 7 is contradicted by the account of Barry Jennings, who was in the building along with another witness.
> ...



That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies. But make if it what you will. Bodies or no bodies, that still doesn't invalidate his entire experience, or the contradictions exposed by his experience.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously.


It was damage from the jets AND the resultant fires. Why did you leave the damage from the jets out previously?



Jackinthebox said:


> Even if were are to believe the nonsense explanation that "both" reasons are why 1 & 2 fell, it still doesn't explain global collapse of the structures. The tops would have sheared off, at most.


The tops would have sheared off??

LOL!

That's a good one.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> What fire in the  1970s?    the other muzzie pig attack on the WTC
> was in  1993 -----a car bomb in the parking lot under the buildings.
> The car bomb did not cause widespread fires----just enough damage to
> kill ---if I remember correctly----seven people and injure a few more.
> ...


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies.


Really? Link the other interviews. 



Jackinthebox said:


> But make if it what you will. Bodies or no bodies, that still doesn't invalidate his entire experience, or the contradictions exposed by his experience.


Name a few of his experiences that expose the contradictions.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, if the damage from jets is what caused them to fall, it would have happened almost instantaneously.
> ...



No plane hit building 7.

Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> No plane hit building 7.
> 
> Oh sure, partial collapse makes you laugh, but total collapse makes sense to you.


Why'd you leave out the jets hitting WTC1 and WTC2 and said it was only fire?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > That was not the only interview he gave where he said there were bodies.
> ...



They have been scrubbed from the internet. 

You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > No plane hit building 7.
> ...



No plane hit 7.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> They have been scrubbed from the internet.


Of course they have...



Jackinthebox said:


> You can read and watch all about his experiences on your own time, with what is still available out there. I am not going to hold your hand and rehash information that you can go and see for yourself.


I've looked into his account extensively and it is full of contradictions and assumptions. You made the claim that his experiences contradict what actually happened and I asked you to provide some of them.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


Why'd you bring up the fire in 1970 when no jets were involved? Or don't you have the guts to admit you're wrong?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > They have been scrubbed from the internet.
> ...



This interview corroborates some elements of his account.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


And this one does not...


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.


You aren't serious are you?

Are you suggesting that the screen mesh is supporting the gravity load of the door above? Are you suggesting that the plane should have pushed the perimeter columns to the side like a pen would when pushed through a screen??

Just... wow...


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.


Just for kicks, I would like you to explain how you think the screen of a door is in any way structurally similar to the perimeter columns of WTC1/WTC2.

You making that comparison is laughable.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> . . .AS TO NIST they followed all the protocols.



Well, _if_ that's true (and I sincerely doubt it is, particularly where the strangely delayed investigation of the so-called collapse of building 7 was concerned), it doesn't address their eventual concession of a period of gravitational acceleration that was and remains unexplainable in light of their ultimate _finding_: the fire-induced progressive collapse model. Or maybe you'd like to clarify as to how "follow[ing] all the protocols" exonerates the NIST group of suggesting in effect that the third law of motion apparently didn't apply to the physical materials that composed the bearing walls of building 7.

Of course, as we've learned from men like Kevin Ryan, who was fired in 2004 from his managerial/oversight position at the Environmental Testing Division of Underwriters Laboratories (the company contracted by the NIST group to conduct physical testing on certain WTC construction materials) for asking too many uncomfortable questions about the project's scope and results, because, in his words, "_I felt I was trying to protect my company’s reputation, actually; although I was increasingly suspicious that something was going on that was not above board._" (from the transcript of an August 2014 interview posted here),  the NIST group had similarly ignored and/or twisted any physical evidence that didn't support its unwarranted foregone conclusions WRT the _collapses_ of buildings 1 and 2 as well. For instance, again quoting Ryan from the foregoing link: "_What they actually showed in the floor model test that UL helped them with was that, if they put the floor models in the furnace and tested per ASTM E119, the temperature would rise, and after about 45 minutes the sagging would begin, but only about 3 inches of sagging would occur at that temperature. If they let it go farther it would sag a bit more, but not nearly up to the point that they reported in their computer model, (which they ended up resorting to, because these physical tests were not really supporting their predetermined conclusions)._" In fact, in at least seven critical respects, the testing conducted by UL flew in the face of the conclusions nonetheless laid-out in the NIST group's initial report.

It's one thing to give the appearance of following protocols, Daws; it's another to *actually follow them* to wherever the evidence leads.

As for the _Popular Mechanics_ bullshit, which has been refuted on-line ad nauseam over the years and doesn't even comport to certain aspects of the NIST group's "final report", all I will say here is consider the source.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



The fires were not only not minimal, they were chaotic, unfought and _burned for hours_. No demo explosives could have survived that and no evidence of demo explosives was found. If there were the "clandestine operatives posing as construction crews and security personnel" you claim, surely some would have come forward in the past 13 years.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > A jet hitting a steel building is like punching a hole in a screen door with a pen. Even if you set it on fire, the screen is not going to fall down.
> ...



The plane punched a hole in the building, that was it. If it did enough damage to cause structural failure, we would have seen a partial collapse right away.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Several people have come forward including a former FBI agent who was investigating suspicious activity by work crews BEFORE 9/11.

The fires were minimal, I know people who were there. Burning for hours has nothing to do with it. The entire building could have been totally involved, and the steel structure would still not collapse.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > AS TO NIST they followed all the protocols.
> ...



What do you find to have been strange about the delay in the WTC7 investigation?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.


That's a lie.

Jennings admitted he never SAW any bodies. He assumed.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.
> ...



Point conceded. 

But the firefighters were not telling him to not look down for no reason. I am a firefighter. I know what we say to people and why. I also know people who were there that day, but I am not going to put their name out there and what they saw.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Then why did you say that the screen still wouldn't collapse even if it was set on fire after the pen was pushed through? You're making a structural stability comparison between a screen and the tower's perimeter facade. Now you're trying to backpedal because you were called out on it? Look at what you wrote. The pen pushes the "wires" making up the screen to the side. The wires of the screen are not supporting a gravity load. 

When the jets impacted the building, you weakened the structure as a whole through severed and damaged structural components. The resultant fires weakened the remaining structural components that were already being over-stressed and caused the structure to fail.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


So why are there no casualties listed of those killed who worked in WTC7? Why are no relatives or friends of those killed in WTC7 who worked there coming forward to say anything?

You knowing why you say certain things to people means absolutely nothing. The point is, you used Barry as a witness to seeing bodies to try and prove your belief, and that has been proven false, to which you agree.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Obviously your conclusion is incorrect as WTC7 did collapse but the fact remains that no demo rigging could have survived the fires and no evidence of demo explosives was found. Firefighters at the scene said they thought WTC7 was showing signs of imminent collapse so they pulled out:

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. *I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on*. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about..." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. *It had very heavy fire on many floors* and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people..." - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. *Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that "nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there*."  [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Which would have only caused structural failure in the damaged areas. 


And pardon me for giving you a on oversimplified explanation in an attempt to dumb it down enough for you to grasp. Yes, I am aware that a screen is not a load bearing structure.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



There are missing people still from that day, ASSUMED lost in the disaster. But since no body was found, it cannot be said for sure if they died, or which building they actually died in. 

Besides,. the government can't even tell us who the hijackers even were, so missing people and so forth is really no big surprise since half of the alleged hijackers turned out to still be alive after 9/11.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There were no firefighting operations inside Building 7 at all because they had no water. 


*CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."*

Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> And pardon me for giving you a on oversimplified explanation in an attempt to dumb it down enough for you to grasp. Yes, I am aware that a screen is not a load bearing structure.


You didn't dumb it down for anyone but yourself. I worked in an engineering firm AND in construction as a supervisor for many years.

You're just parroting what you hear without a firm understanding of how structures actually work.

And if you KNEW a screen is not a load bearing structure, then why did make the comment that it wouldn't collapse even after being set on fire and try to compare THAT result to the load bearing structure of a building to make it seem like it should have collapsed?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


So what? One person? There are interviews stating creaking throughout the structure. They even had a transit on the building and it was leaning. What about the observed bulge?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > He also saw bodies, which officially no one died in 7.
> ...


 
BINGO! That goes to the heart of the "Truther" Movement. It was fueled by half-truths, innuendo, suppositions, assumptions and outright fabrications which, despite being continually debunked still live on in the minds of the 9/11 CT cultists.

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - ex-"Truther" Charlie Veitch


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > And pardon me for giving you a on oversimplified explanation in an attempt to dumb it down enough for you to grasp. Yes, I am aware that a screen is not a load bearing structure.
> ...



Because I was trying to give you a dumbed down example. Like I just told you, but you are still too firrgin dense to even understand that concept. 

I have been a firefighter and worked in construction for years. Never once saw a steel structure collapse from fire. I have a clear enough understanding of structures to bet my life on it every time I go into a burning building.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



The "official" theory is no more valid than any other. The government admits that it can't even back up it's own story, and has been PROVEN wrong on numerous occasions, not to mention all the of the half-truths, innuendo, suppositions, assumptions and outright fabrications you speak of. The official version is just another conspiracy theory.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)




----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Because I was trying to give you a dumbed down example. Like I just told you, but you are still too firrgin dense to even understand that concept.


A dumbed down example of what? A plane (the pen) hitting a structure under a load (the screen) and what the result SHOULD have been? You're putting your foot into your mouth now. 



Jackinthebox said:


> I have a clear enough understanding of structures


Riiiigghhhht....

Which is why you're comparing the screen to the perimeter facade of WTC1/WTC2.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> The government admits that it can't even back up it's own story, and has been PROVEN wrong on numerous occasions, not to mention all the of the half-truths, innuendo, suppositions, assumptions and outright fabrications you speak of.


Yet you've provided no evidence of it being proven wrong or any of the half-truths, innuendos, suppositions, assumptions, and outright fabrications. All I've seen yet is that the "evidence" you've provided that you think support your beliefs have been proven incorrect. Example, your "Barry Jennings saw bodies" garbage.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Never once saw a steel structure collapse from fire. I have a clear enough understanding of structures to bet my life on it every time I go into a burning building.


You've never been told not to enter a building because it was deemed to be structurally unsafe?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.


another baseless allegation.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.
> 
> Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


wow more non scientific twoofer non corroborated shit !
 here's the sites credentials
Random shit The Captain finds around the web. Heavy on the injustices of the police-state, exposing the NWO, waking up the sheeple, a little dose of UFO's and the unexplained, along with other side topics that may or may not tie into the general theme, such as science and tech, history, nature and wildlife, health and nutrition, music videos, etc. We welcome contributions, comments, and opinions. If you would like to become a contributor, click on the CONTACT key and give us a shout. 


Read more: ABOUT Station.6.Underground

What gets posted here does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Captain Sicks, Stationsixunderground, other editors and contributors, or November-Blue Enterprise. User comments are the responsibility of the commenters themselves. Some of what gets posted may be done tongue-in-cheek, even if it is not categorized as satire. Other items may be considered by the contributors to be of the utmost seriousness and importance. And sometimes, we might just be wrong. Nothing written here should be taken as professional advice of any sort, unless otherwise specified. 

The point is, use your peanut and decide for yourself jackass. 




Also, whenever sharing non-original material, proper attribution will be given by linking to the source, or otherwise stating the source of that material. Stationsixunderground is not responsible for hosting material that is already publicly available elsewhere on the web. Stationsixunderground does not upload material to the web that is not original, or for which express permission has not been given. The purpose of pasting or sharing any off-site material is generally for conversational purposes but may include other commentary such as criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship purposes. No item shared here is meant as an alternative to any original source. Users are encouraged to visit linked sites where the original material may be found in its entire and original format. If owners of original material wish to have materiel removed from this site, please contact us at the address listed under the "contacts" tab. We will respond immediately upon receipt of any such request to remove material that does not conform with the standards of Fair Use.

God bless the Freedom of Speech.



Read more: DISCLAIMER Station.6.Underground


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


true, but it was hit by wtc1 .


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Never once saw a steel structure collapse from fire. I have a clear enough understanding of structures to bet my life on it every time I go into a burning building.
> ...



Sure, a wooden building, or from debris falling. Not because of an imminent threat of global collapse of a steel framework.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some examples, of burning skyscrapers from around the world, that did not collapse, despite the fact that they suffered fires that burned longer, and engulfed more square footage of the structure.
> ...



So instead of talking about the actual information provided, you are just going to attack the source. 

I don't care where the pic got posted. The FACT remains that the pic shows numerous pics of steel buildings which burned hotter, faster and longer. No steel building has EVER collapsed from fire. That is a fact, and it doesn't matter what site that fact gets posted on.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Some facade damage. 


This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.





For comparison now, here is a picture of the Deutsche Bank building which suffered extensive damage on 9/11. A fire in 2007 claimed the lives of two FDNY firefighters. Nearly a decade later, a $100-million deconstruction project was completed and *the building was no more*. 





The following two images show the damage done to WTC Building #3 on 9/11, and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City after it was bombed in 1995. Despite the devastation, what remained of the buildings still did not collapse, and had to be brought down later.









Read more: World Trade Center Building 7 on 9 11 The Evidence Station.6.Underground


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


>


oh shit not the bush ploy!


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > The Popular Mechanics report is a whitewash and has more holes in it than WTC7 did.
> ...



See my earlier post where I shot down the quoted points, one at a time.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false shit head! everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS.
you sources have zero credibility making it matter immensely what is posted and by who.

  as to your  " No steel building has EVER collapsed from fire. That is a fact,"
it's not fact


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


sorry but that was like all your shit, an epic fail.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Some facade damage.
> 
> 
> This is an image of debris which struck and damaged WTC 7.


That's not WTC7...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> false shit head! everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS.
> you sources have zero credibility making it matter immensely what is posted and by who.
> 
> as to your  " No steel building has EVER collapsed from fire. That is a fact,"
> it's not fact



Yesss. Name calling will go a long way to establish your credibility, lol. 

Your video does not show any global failures. It only shows collapses in the FIRE AFFECTED areas. Notice the highway example, the underpass did not collapse when the overpass came down. The other examples also show only the fire affected areas collapsing, not global collapse of the entire building.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > false shit head! everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS.
> ...


And there is your problem. The fire affected areas of WTC1 and WTC2 DID fail and initiated collapse of the upper section onto the lower section. Gravity and the descending upper section completed the global collapse.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

9/11 Truthers Exposed
Disclaimer: This blog and the contents on it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Truthers can not sue for libel damages for providing this blog with information reguarding their charactor. The facts and evidence within this blog are true. 

*"It goes without saying, that any of us who argue against Conspiracy Theories are part of the Conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theories are fairy story realities, they are a narrative which improves apon reality itself." - Quote from book author David Aaronovitch* 

Welcome to this presentation of "*9/11 Truthers Exposed*". The presentation is based on exposing the ideas, myths, strawmen arguements, fradulant claims and fantasy stories surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 from the 9/11 Truthers, 9/11 Truth Movement, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. As being narrative and fairy stories on the assumptions of their imaginations reguarding 9/11. We will expose the 9/11 Truthers and what they believe in it's entirety, from years of researching and understanding the Truthers. 

If anyone reading this presentation would like to print copies of it, they can do so, *free of charge*. If anyone is living in New York and goes to Ground Zero, daily or on the anniversaries, they can present a copy of this presentation to anyone of their choosing, including the 9/11 Truthers, since this presentation is of the people, by the people and for the people. 

*Truthers are told to do the following:* 

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down. 

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away. 

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement. 

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers. 

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly. 


*Quote Mining the Witnesses:*

Truthers often quote mine the witness statements to try and prove that there is a conspiracy by the FDNY, Larry Silverstein & the U.S. Government. Example: Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" comment:

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

Truthers have tried, in vain, to prove that Larry Silverstein wanted to demolish World Trade Center 7 with explosives. They quote mine his statement & misrepresent everything that he said. Let's break down his statement to make it clear that he didn't give out orders to the FDNY to have WTC7 CDed (Controlled Demolitioned):

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

He was talking with the FDNY commander at the time, not a Controlled Demolishes Expert!

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

WTC7 had uncontrollable fires and the firefighters couldn't fight it because the water mains were already broken by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

9 11 TRUTHERS EXPOSED 9 11 Truthers Exposed


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Which doesn't happen. And especially not at free fall speed. 

Look, this building has the towers fall on it. And even though it is completely gutted, the steel framework is still standing.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > false shit head! everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS.
> ...


rationalizing does not prove anything.
as to credibility having none ,you have no idea what it is or how you gain it.
your source has none so by extension you have none either.
see how that works.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> 9/11 Truthers Exposed
> Disclaimer: This blog and the contents on it is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Truthers can not sue for libel damages for providing this blog with information reguarding their charactor. The facts and evidence within this blog are true.
> 
> *"It goes without saying, that any of us who argue against Conspiracy Theories are part of the Conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theories are fairy story realities, they are a narrative which improves apon reality itself." - Quote from book author David Aaronovitch*
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false! the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" is meaningless you have no evidence of cause ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 Truthers Exposed
> ...


you do realize that the physiologist in that clip is bias and payed by truth dot org...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

As far as Silverstein goes with his pull it comment, there was never an interior firefighting attack to begin with, so there was no operation to "pull" at all.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ...the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" is meaningless you have no evidence of cause ...



What a coincidence; neither did NIST. They couldn't even muster a _possible_ explanation for it.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



And the same could be said of the Pop Mech report, NIST, etcetera, that they were all biased and paid off. Or do you actually thing the 9/11 report was legit?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)




----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" is meaningless you have no evidence of cause ...
> ...


false! might want to look up the word meaningless


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS



... says the fraud who tried to sell the story of WTC 1 and 2 burning for hours


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


>



The weakening of a steel section does not cause global collapse of a steel structure. Your own previous video showed that, when the overpass collpased onto the underpass, and when there were partial collpases in burning buildings, where the buildings were actually burning. 

I never said anything about missiles either so your second video there is irrelevant.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


yes it could but that again is false and your allegation is specious,
the 911 report is legit it has many mistakes as it was rushed into publication BEFORE the nist studies were finished.
once again you have no evidence it is not .


----------



## Capstone (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Yeah, I'll get right on that. In the meantime, you might want to look up the word "_possible_".


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.


Hmmm...

So what was the static load limit of the first floor that the descending upper section impacted versus the load generated by the descending upper section?

Have those numbers handy?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



It could, but is false, what? It is specious of me to question the validity of your sources or sources with a vested interest in a coverup? Or to point out things like the FACT that they have no evidence to support their position that building 7 was brought down by fire? Among many other claims by officials which are totally baseless and proven false.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> As far as Silverstein goes with his pull it comment, there was never an interior firefighting attack to begin with, so there was no operation to "pull" at all.


 
Another of your 9/11 CT half-truths. There certainly were firefighters in WTC7 who were "pulled" because the situation was deemed too dangerous. Two hours after they were pulled WTC7 collapsed. If your CTBS had any basis in truth, you would not need to lie so often.

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. - Interview with Chief Peter Hayden (Firehouse.com. September 9, 2002)

During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. - Interview with Captain Chris Boyle (Firehouse.com. August 2002)

Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. - Interview with Chief Daniel Nigro (The New York Times. October 24, 2001)

"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - ex-"Truther" Charlie Veitch


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > A collapsing steel structure meets resistance on the way down. That did not happen on 9/11.
> ...



Educate me. Show me the numbers which explain global collapse of a steel structure.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



It doesn't HAVE to but obviously it can and did.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS
> ...


that's no fraud:


CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > everything you've posted in this thread is false OR HALF TRUTHS
> ...


9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.
combined time 192mins

or 3 hours twelve minutes, so where's the fraud?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > As far as Silverstein goes with his pull it comment, there was never an interior firefighting attack to begin with, so there was no operation to "pull" at all.
> ...



There was no interior attack made. Operations around the building is not an interior attack operation.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


not yet you haven't


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



So you are claiming there were no fire or other rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11? "Truthers" say the silliest things.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Can't and didn't. There is another explanation. Maybe demolitions, maybe friggin magic powers, not up to me to say. But steel buildings don't just fall down. Even if there was structural failure on the impacted floors, it would not have brought down the rest of the building.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


what's possible and what occurred are to separate things
 put another way  the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Oh, now you are using presumptions as proof of something. Lol. What was that about ad hominems in your little truther article there?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


bullshit! fire fighters were in and out of wtc7 for hours after the towers collapsed..


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



There was no interior fire fighting attack operation at WTC7. The building had been declared evacuated. NIST even says that.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


I asked you first.

What are you basing your claim that the lower section should have resisted the upper section? You made the claim, I asked you to back it up. How about forget the numbers part. Explain how the structural system as a whole should have reacted to resist.

You said you have a construction background right?

First question I have for you. If each floor in WTC1 and WTC2 is designed to hold a static weight of items put on it AND itself, how in the world do you expect each floor to resist the load of the entire upper section descending down upon it? Do you not comprehend the major difference in load values created by the descending upper section and the designed static load of a floor?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Probability of 3 steel structures collapsing into their own footprint at free fall speed is even lower.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


Interior search and rescue operations were not ongoing that day? Care to explain how Jennings and Hess were rescued from inside the building?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


3 steel structures did not collapse at free fall speed. That's a lie. Another half truth.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false I'm pointing out your numerous  assumptions of all to the other twoofer talking point you've used to bolster your fantasy.  

 ad hominems  is spelled wrong and it's a dodge around taking responsibility for yourself.
the don't shoot the messenger bullshit does not play here.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


yes it would be, but that's not what happened.
that's another played out twoofer talking point.
ever heard the term dynamic load?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



So you freely admit to using disinformation tactics that you blamed truthers for using.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false comparison
did any planes crash into or in close  proximity to that building?
if not it's meaningless..


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


That doesn't address my question. Explain in terms of WTC1 and WTC2. Showing me a video doesn't tell me YOU understand the mechanics being applied.

Again, explain how YOU think the lower section should have resisted and give reasons why. Explain why you think each floor, designed for a static load, should have held together against the load generated by the descending upper section.

You're dodging because you don't know.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


another not credible group A&E FOR TRUTH.
might want to stop your ass must be sore from getting it ripped off and handed to you so many times is one thread.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Damage is damage. Doesn't matter if it was caused by a bomb, a plane, Mexican food or aliens. Steel buildings do not collapse in on themselves without a lot of planning and precise execution.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


Kind of like you and the location of the jet engine right?

You kept pushing your crap until it was shown you and your information were completely wrong.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



It's not how I think it happened. Steel buildings do not collapse under their own load without eliminating many, many key structure points throughout the structure.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


ten pages in and the making shit up posts begin.
I've admitted  nothing  just stating facts .
you on the other hand,,,


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


Yet you can't explain in simple terms how the lower sections of WTC and WTC2 should have resisted the descent of the upper section.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



How is NIST any more credible than A&E?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


ah.... obviously they do...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Making shit up? Like assuming that I was going to say anything about missiles?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


one does actual science the other does not. That's how.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


it was not an assumption,


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I have, several times now. Because steel buildings don't just collapse under their own weight at free fall speed without a perfectly executed demolition plan.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

Sayit - So were you dancing and celebrating like the other Israelis when the Towers got hit?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ah.... obviously they do...



Yeah, in the NIST imaginationland.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Telling a story without any evidence to support your claim is not science.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Well I didn't say anything about missiles, so you sir, are now talking straight out of your ass.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...





Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


You've done nothing of the sort. You have no examples of buildings similar to WTC1 or WTC2 that were impacted by a jet in the upper third and remained standing thus I have asked you to explain how these buildings (since there are no prior examples) should have resisted and you can't do it.

BTW, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speeds. Sorry. Yet another half truth.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> so low as to be immeasurable



That would be your IQ.--  Integrity Quotient


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ah.... obviously they do...
> ...


says the queen of imagination land.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Impacted by a jet makes no difference, as I already said. Damage is damage. You're just talking in circles now. I also showed the free fall analysis already as well.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false  the only record freefall speed was 2.5 seconds wtc7 .
so you are lying about the towers.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I am not imagining anything. Not imagining missiles, and not imagining that a fire brought down a building without any evidence to support that claim.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


that's exactly what you and your pals are doing.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

Telling stories is what these guys do best -- they love their fiction


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



What claims have I made other than to say that NIST has failed to explain the collapses?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > so low as to be immeasurable
> ...


 another no integrity slapdick opines about a thing he doesn't have.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


the back peddling begins.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> what's possible and what occurred are to separate things ...



Not where the actual events of the day were concerned. One thing we all know for sure is that, _whatever_ happened on that fateful morning, it HAD to have been physically possible.



daws101 said:


> ...put another way  the probability of conspiracy version of events on 911 is so low as to be immeasurable



Well, however low you _claim_ the probabilities of occurrence were for apparently all of the "conspiracy version(s)" (other than your preferred conspiracy theory, of course), their unlikelihoods don't approach the big fat 0% chance (read: no possibility whatsoever) of reinforced concrete bearing walls pulverizing themselves without creating physical resistance to the downward motion for _any_ length of time.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

nice try, you treacherous criminal


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I can speculate as to what happened, how, why. But the onus was on the government to tell us what actually did happen. They failed, miserably. Their version is no more credible than any other theory out there.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Evacuated at 3:30 pm, and didn't you just claim there were no fire/rescue people in WTC7 on 9/11. Perhaps you should think BEFORE you post your contradictory CTBS.
Do you have any *facts* which conflict with these because they certainly conflict with your fairy tales:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. Over the course of the day, fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center; the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon. At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 533 pm EDT (according to FEMA), the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, but differing times are given as to what time the building completely collapsed: at 510 pm EDT according to FEMA, and at 552 pm EDT according to NIST. There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Rescue efforts ended with Barry Jennings, that morning, just after the first tower collapsed. There was no interior attack made in WTC7. There were also no ongoing interior ops of any kind underway when Silverstein said "pull it." The building was not evacuated at 330 pm. That is outright false.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


 
The fact that even a CD can go horribly wrong would lead any rational adult to question the ability of a demo company to discreetly rig those enormous buildings and have it not melt in the chaotic, uncontrolled fires or just explode willy-nilly.
I mean, wouldn't simply blasting a critical point - if such a point was known or even existed - and then blaming it on some nefarious terrorist group have done the dirty deed?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



It is still more plausible than the critical points in all three buildings failing in each building simultaneously.

Maybe there is another explanation besides a demo team. I can't really say. That seems like a reasonable theory, but for all I know, the buildings were built to fail right from the start. What I do know is that NIST failed to prove their case.

EDIT to add: There is no such thing as any one single critical point that will bring down a building.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Wow. You've been claiming that the fires were minor, that no fire or rescue peeps entered WTC7 on 9/11 and that there wasn't significant damage to the structure, all of which is _*directly contradicted*_ by statements from *professionals who were there*, witnessing the events and making the decisions. Furthermore, it was FDNY Chief Nigro who stated he "pulled" everyone out at 3:30 pm but only an arrogant, desperately shrill CT would claim to know better. The only problem with Nigro's account is that it tips your silly little house of 9/11 CT cards. Tough titties.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



That also would lead any rational adult to doubt the CT account of events. There was no way to know how the passenger jets would impact the Towers and no way of knowing that large chunks of the North Tower would fall hundreds of feet onto WTC7. It seems you have enough info to reject your 9/11 CT silliness but neither the ability nor the integrity to.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)




----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

of





Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false the onus is on you ass hats to prove they are not .
you made the allegations of wrong doing.
thanks for providing another fine example of misrepresentation.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED BUT AGAIN IT'S NOT.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


>


WE ARE Change 

mission statement
*ABOUT US*
*Mission Statement*
We Are Change is a nonpartisan, independent media organization comprised of individuals and groups working to expose corruption worldwide. Founded by Luke Rudkowski, We Are Change is comprised of independent journalists, concerned citizens, activists, and anyone who wants to shape the direction our world is going in. We seek to expose the lies of governments and the corporate elite who constantly trash our humanity.  By asking the hard questions the mainstream media refuses to ask, we shine a little more light on truth. Furthermore, we seek to connect, educate, and motivate those who are interested in alerting the public to the pertinent issues that are affecting our lives each and every day.  Our goal is to create a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers who share a commitment to nonviolent action. We Are Change is not so much an individual or group, but an idea, an idea that “We the People” are the change we wish to see in this world. Together, as residents of this planet, we can push back against those who wish to dominate our lives and begin to restore liberty to all....no scientific credibility whatsoever.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I didn't say no one went in. I said there was no interior attack. The last rescue effort was in the morning, long before EXTERIOR ops were told to evacuate the area that afternoon. 

The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage, but in comparison to other buildings, there was far less damage. 

There is no contradiction.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



I don't subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory, including the one presented by NIST. We still don't know what actually happened that day. That's the point.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Okay, prove it.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Yelling down the public
*Luke Rudkowski* (born 1986) is an American investigative "journalist", right-wing activist, convicted felon, conspiracy theorist and founder of We Are Change, a libertarian, independent media organization comprising individuals and groups working to "expose worldwide corruption and hold authoritative figures to account for their actions and crimes in which their involvement has been covered up or hidden from public knowledge."[1] He is also an ardent Ron Paul supporter.



Luke Rudkowski and We Are Change mainly preach their message through filmed 'man on the street' interviews he does with random members of the public, similar to Jay Leno's "Jaywalking." Here, he tests their knowledge of the New World Order, Federal Reserve and September 11 conspiracies, and sometimes other issues. Most of the sheeple are unaware of the irrefutable conspiratorial truths that Rudkowski and his group put forth, and as a result are often ridiculed during these confrontations. Rudkowski has also confronted powerful political figures, including Henry Kissinger[2] and David Rockefeller,[3] and has questioned them about their plans to bring about a "one world socialist government" and to kill off the useless eaters. Most of these powerful figures generally avoid answering Rudkowski's predominantly stupid questions, which he and his followers see as _proof_ that these evil people are conspiring against us!
A few of his videos have actually been quite good. In one video, Rudkowski interviewed numerous religious individuals and a secularist in attempt to show America's religious hypocrisy.[4]. In other videos, Rudkowski has questioned the human rights record of Barack Obama and other political leaders and has shown skepticism about celebrities who have endorsed such figures. However, many of Rudkowski's cinematic pieces are just irritating examples of a typical condescending crank at work. He also refuses to tell his viewers how he gains access to these powerful figures, but instead created a satirical video detailing how it is done.[5] He has also protested with the Christian conspiracy crank Mark Dice, libertarian propagandist Adam Kokesh,[6] David Icke[7] and Immortal Technique, and has maintained friendships with these individuals. Furthermore, and unsurprisingly, Rudkowski is a climate change denier and believes that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is being used to justify a one-world government and the elite's use of eugenics.[8] In short, he should be regarded more as an attention-seeker with a video camera than someone who will actually bring some positive change to the world.[9]
*[edit] Embezzlement*
In 2010, a series of YouTube videos emerged entitled "Luke Rudkowski Exposed!", in which Rudkowski is accused of mishandling We Are Change funds for his own personal gain.[10] In December 2012, Rudkowski faced criminal charges of corporate embezzlement.[11] He was found guilty of earlier charges by the Common Law Court: two counts of fraud, and one charge each of embezzlement, libel and extortion, which happened between 2007-2009. He was exonerated of other charges.[12] Rudkowski has repeatedly claimed his innocence, and even argues that his arrest and conviction on some charges is the result of some sort of conspiracy against him.
*[edit] Spreading the message to the world*
*
Luke Rudkowski - RationalWiki*


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Saying "no scientific credibility whatsoever" doesn't make it so. Besides, I am not a disciple of We Are Change or any other group anyway. I just look at the info presented, from any source available. That includes objectively assessing the info from NIST and other government organizations.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


that's your job ...


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


but is so ,it's not my opinion it's fact.
nothing you have presented is even close to being objective


objective
[ əbˈjektiv ]
*adjective*
adjective: *objective*

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial · unbiased · unprejudiced · nonpartisan · disinterested ·
neutral · uninvolved · even-handed · equitable · fair · fair-minded · just · open-minded · dispassionate · detached · neutral
More
not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:
"a matter of objective fact"
synonyms: factual · actual · real · empirical · evidence-based ·
verifiable
More

of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
*noun*


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Yelling down the public
> *Luke Rudkowski* (born 1986) is an American investigative "journalist", right-wing activist, convicted felon, conspiracy theorist and founder of We Are Change, a libertarian, independent media organization comprising individuals and groups working to "expose worldwide corruption and hold authoritative figures to account for their actions and crimes in which their involvement has been covered up or hidden from public knowledge."[1] He is also an ardent Ron Paul supporter.
> 
> 
> ...



More ad hominem crap. I don't care two shits about him being a felon, being a Ron Paul supporter, or anything else. And if there really is indeed a conspiracy, it only stands to reason that the powers that be would try to discredit him in the same way that you are trying to do right now. But as I said, this isn't about personalities anyway, it is about proveable facts, and/or a serious lack of them.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Okay, prove it.


that's your job ...[/QUOTE]

False. You are the one stating as a fact what actually did happen, without any supporting scientific proof. Lacking more information, the best I can do is theorize as to what might have happened. 

I know what didn't happen though. 3 buildings did not fall down because of two planes and fire.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Yelling down the public
> ...


you have none of either.
who the info come from is just if not more important than the information itself. 
again it's not  ad hominem if it's fact.
damn your a pussy!


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You have presented no facts to prove how or why the buildings collapsed.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, prove it.
> ...



False. You are the one stating as a fact what actually did happen, without any supporting scientific proof. Lacking more information, the best I can do is theorize as to what might have happened.

I know what didn't happen though. 3 buildings did not fall down because of two planes and fire.[/QUOTE]false you wish that were true. the evidence and the facts say different.
truthers have never had any thing more then an extremely tenuous grip on reality.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I never claimed to be able to explain why the buildings fell. 

You can justify your ad hominem approach all you like, but it directly contradicts your own earlier presentation as to the credibility of persons employing such tactics.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


I don't need to since  it's already been done.
again it on you to prove your specious assumptions


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> false you wish that were true. the evidence and the facts say different.
> truthers have never had any thing more then an extremely tenuous grip on reality.



You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves. 

Adding more insults to the pile does nothing to bolster your credibility.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


again false !the only posters here that are justifying and rationalizing their posts are you asshats


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'

You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes, your only purpose is to impede those that seek answers and demand accountability and you will do so by any means necessary - lying, denying, falsifying, ignoring, exaggerating, misrepresenting --- whatever it takes


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> I don't need to since  it's already been done.
> again it on you to prove your specious assumptions



No, it hasn't been done. As I just said, even NIST themselves admit they can't show the science behind their claim or provide any physical evidence to support their theory. If you are going to claim that fire brought down the building, fine, prove it. the onus is not on me to disprove that which has yet to be proven.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > false you wish that were true. the evidence and the facts say different.
> ...


 It's not required for me or an other non crapspiracy theorist to prove our credibility
again that's on you . 
what facts does nist not have.?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Asshats. Hmm, yes, we firefighters are just a bunch of asshats I guess then.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


call the waaaaaaahbulance.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


your not a firefighter a pyromaniac maybe but not a fire fighter .
time to wake up Dorothy


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



I am not a member of We Are anything, and I have indeed looked into a lot of CT and found a lot of it to be bullcrap. That still doesn't PROVE the official version of events either though.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



NIST doesn't have any facts or evidence to support their claim as to what brought down the buildings, by their very own admission, in the Pop Mech article. 

This isn't about credibility, this is about the presentation of data. NIST has none.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Lol, okay. Come on out to NY tough guy. We'll see who is what.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


false again credibility is everything.
again what facts or proof doesn't nist have.
you keep saying that but as yet you presented nothing to back that bullshit up.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


 right! now that is funny...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ohhh, I get it. Ad hominems and logical flaws are only justified when YOU use them. I get it now. What a dipshit.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> credibility is everything


and you have *ZERO* credibility


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. You've been claiming that the fires were minor, that no fire or rescue peeps entered WTC7 on 9/11 and that there wasn't significant damage to the structure, all of which is _*directly contradicted*_ by statements from *professionals who were there*, witnessing the events and making the decisions. Furthermore, it was FDNY Chief Nigro who stated he "pulled" everyone out at 3:30 pm but only an arrogant, desperately shrill CT would claim to know better. The only problem with Nigro's account is that it tips your silly little house of 9/11 CT cards. Tough titties.
> ...



There's not only a contradiction between your account and that of the professionals who were there witnessing the events and fighting the fires, there's a contradiction in your own claim that "The fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor. Yes, there was open fire and serious damage."
So which was it ... "minor ... fires and damage" or "open fire and serious damage?"


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> More ad hominem crap. I don't care two shits about him being a felon, being a Ron Paul supporter, or anything else. And if there really is indeed a conspiracy, it only stands to reason that the powers that be would try to discredit him in the same way that you are trying to do right now. But as I said, this isn't about personalities anyway, it is about proveable facts, and/or a serious lack of them.



Given the t-shirt and DVD selling agenda of the "Truthers" I'd say their character is certainly a valid issue, and there has been virtually nothing in the way of "provable facts" from your movement in 13 years (which explains why it's so D-E-A-D).

"This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, 'mutha fuckin bitch ass money.' Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11TRUTH UAlbany


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves.



NIST never admitting having "no facts." That's just you adding to your prodigious pile of lies.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



You do understand the concept of relativity? A bonfire might look like a big fire, but compared to a house burning down it's not. You are struggling hard to pin me on a contradiction that I never made. There was no one in building 7 fighting fires. There was a brief rescue operation in the morning to get Barry Jennings and the guy he was with. That was it. There was no interior attack operation to fight fire.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > You have no facts. NIST even admits that themselves.
> ...



The Pop Mech report says they tossed all the evidence, basically because they didn't think they would need it since there was allegedly no loss of life in 7.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


 
You basically just acknowledged that you are full of crap.
At no time did the NIST admit - as you falsely clamed - that they had "no facts." Not surprisingly, you see no problem with your continual need to lie but we both know it is necessary to maintain your silly little 9/11 CT house of cards. 
By any chance are you a disinformationalist trying to discredt the "Truther" Movement?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Fine, you go ahead and show me the physical evidence that NIST provided then.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



I've seen your pompous routine here from others. You make bogus claims like the "fires and damage were indeed RELATIVELY minor" and then spin or backpedal when they are challenged. There's nothing new or unique about you or your unfounded beliefs.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Still waiting on that physical evidence there buddy.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Like most people I can see its imperfect and incomplete nature but there is _nothing_ in the NIST report you will accept as it interferes with your agenda-driven conclusions. When compared to the lunacy that was the "Truther" Movement (PBUI), the official conclusions are the only plausible explanation. I think it would be of greater value to spell out exactly what is _your_ agenda. Given you eagerness to lie about 9/11, I suspect it might be very interesting.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Yup, still waiting on that proof there buddy.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Proof of what, Princess?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Show me the physical evidence that fire brought down Tower 7.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Explained 10,000 times...
> ...


The building (#7) was creeking before the collapse as a result of the concussion of the events earlier.



Jackinthebox said:


> Fire proofing? There was no fireproofing even in place at all during the 1970's fire in Tower 1 which burned larger and longer than on 9/11.



Is this the fire you're talking about?
_
On February 13, 1975, a three-alarm fire broke out on the 11th floor of the North Tower. Fire spread through the core to the 9th and 14th floors by igniting the insulation of telephone cables in a utility shaft that ran vertically between floors. Areas at the furthest extent of the fire were extinguished almost immediately and the original fire was put out in a few hours.[60] Most of the damage was concentrated on the 11th floor, fueled by cabinets filled with paper, alcohol-based fluid for office machines, and other office equipment.*Fireproofing protected the steel[61]* and there was no structural damage to the tower.[60] In addition to damage caused by the fire on the 9th–14th floors, water from the extinguishing of the fires damaged a few floors below. At that time, the World Trade Center had no fire sprinkler systems.[60]_

Looks like fireproofing was there.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



So you're lying when you say you do your own research.  Next.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



Sill waiting for you to explain your agenda, buddy.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



It wasn't the same material. But you're right. I was thinking of the sprinkler system when I said that. 

A lot of buildings were "creaking" and popping that day, but didn't fall down in a nice neat little pile.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



No agenda here. Just looking for answers, or something I haven't already seen.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



They were not hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 unless they were as close as WTC7 was.  And WTC 7 didn't fall into a "nice neat little" anything.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 1, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


Sure...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

candycorn said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



WTC 7 wasn't even a part of the WTC proper. It was on a different block. There were a lot of building that were closer and suffered a LOT more damage. 

WTC 3:







Nice neat pile:


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 1, 2014)

It took ten years and $100 million as well as the lives of two more firefighters to finally bring down the Deutsche Bank too


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 1, 2014)

An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'
> 
> You care nothing about the truth, you question nothing about the OCT which is full of holes,


That's hysterical coming from you!

Weren't you the one blathering on about the jet engine and where it landed and how impossible that was? Weren't you using that as part of your reasoning to try and show that everything is a conspiracy? Until you were shown that story was based on incorrect information, you believed every word of it.

What questions did YOU ask about that particular piece of information to find the truth? You KNEW something was not right, but just ran with the "it was probably planted" garbage. 

You're a hypocrite.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK


No, fire initiated the collapse and the resultant loads applied to the rest of the structure as a result of the gravity driven collapse did that to 40,000 tons of steel.

Get your stories straight.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 2, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...




regarding the  WTC------the agendas and libels emerged long
before the towers collapsed.    -----I suspect any rumor or libel
that seems  PRE-COOKED


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Rescue efforts ended with Barry Jennings, that morning, just after the first tower collapsed.


More bogus information! You cry that there are so many holes in the "Official Story" yet you continue to present bogus information. What a joke. Why aren't you vehemently denouncing those who provide the information that you are finding to be complete garbage like you are the "Official Story"? 

Barry Jennings was rescued around 12:15 in the afternoon. He was trapped inside WTC7 well after BOTH towers had fallen. Where are you getting he was rescued just after the first tower collapsed?

Do any of you actually research the information you use to come to the conclusion that the "Official Story" is false? It sure doesn't look like it based on the couple of threads I've been involved in.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Why was the building on fire and exploding BEFORE the Twins collapsed?


Are you ever going to present information that's factual?! What are you basing this statement on? Let me guess. Barry Jennings' account? The fact that he said the firefighters ran away twice (once for each tower that fell) after he broke the window out on the 8th floor?

Is that right?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ...nothing you have presented is even close to being objective ...



Another coincidence; neither has the NIST group, which, let's not forget, is itself an agency of the US Department of Commerce.

As pointed out here by the patriarch of the scholarly division of the 9/11 Truth Movement, D.R. Griffin,



> . . ._During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, therefore, it was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science.[10]
> 
> Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”[11] *Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”*[12] [emphasis Capstone's]_



That highlighted bit is not what anyone with half a brain could describe as a recipe for scientific objectivity.

Be sure to read the rest of Griffin's essay at the link I've provided, Daws. It obliterates many OCTers' claims and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt just how fraudulent the NIST reports were from top to bottom.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Be sure to read the rest of Griffin's essay at the link I've provided, Daws. It obliterates many OCTers' claims and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt just how fraudulent the NIST reports were from top to bottom.


Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.

Harrit's paper is a joke (we can talk about particular's if you'd like) and the Swiss cheese steel is from eutectic reactions.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...nothing you have presented is even close to being objective ...
> ...


griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery.
btw I know him personally  he's an evangelical nut job, when I was a stage tech at the Claremont colleges we did the audio for his "presentations"
*David Ray Griffin* (born August 8, 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know about credibility, you're a member of 'We Are Criminal Clowns'
> ...


That's the furthest thing from the truth. You're crushing your own credibility by saying that and I love it-  Sayit even blew smoke up my ass at the time when I (promptly) admitted I had made a mistake.


SAYIT said:


> In fact, your admission is the first time any "Truther" has had the courage (and integrity) to admit the "facts" supporting their CT were not facts at all. You get big creds for having both



lol But I hardly "blathered on" about this relatively small issue in the scheme of things - and no one even disputed it with anything of substance - no one said it was the wrong corner. I've learned this is no place for a dialectic


----------



## Capstone (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> ...the Swiss cheese steel is from eutectic reactions. ...



For any OCTer who understands what a 'eutectic reaction' is, it'd be among the last explanations he or she would proffer. The _eutectic point_ (I.E. the temperature *requirements* for a given alloy composition to have a eutectic reaction) of structural steel composites is so high (well beyond even the fraudulent temperatures asserted by the NIST group) that such a reaction is one of the most compelling among the many pieces of physical evidence in favor of the controlled demolition hypothesis by way of military-grade incendiaries - which might explain why the NIST reports made no mention of it, despite its presence in the much earlier FEMA report. So, strictly for the sake of argument, let me just go ahead and concede that the infamous chunk of swiss cheese girder steel was the result of a fire-induced eutectic reaction of its alloy components. 

Of course, the questions  remain:


How did temperatures reach in excess of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit in the WTC fires and rubble (actually, in line with several highly credible and fully credentialed eyewitnesses who reported seeing pools of molten steel below the debris piles, it must have been significantly hotter even than that)?
Why did the NIST group overlook the many pieces of physical and testimonial evidence that didn't support their apparently predetermined conclusions, and further denied in effect that the requisite physical conditions for a eutectic reaction of steel alloy composites were even present at ground zero?



Gamolon said:


> ...Harrit's paper is a joke (we can talk about particular's if you'd like) and the Swiss cheese steel is from eutectic reactions. ...



Oh, I'll be happy to oblige in that regard, but first things first...



Gamolon said:


> ...Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.



...I'd be remiss to let such a _trenchant_ criticism slide on by without a stitch of explicit support.

So, let's take "the pieces he uses as evidence" in the order he used them in his _hogwash-laden_ essay, shall we?

Since you made the charge, I'll allow you to start our little interactive exercise.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > An office fire did this to a 47 story building- over 40,000 tons of structural steel. OK
> ...


No, apply all the phoney physics you like, fire did not initiate the collapse


----------



## Capstone (Dec 2, 2014)

daws101 said:


> griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery.
> btw I know him personally  he's an evangelical nut job, when I was a stage tech at the Claremont colleges we did the audio for his "presentations"
> *David Ray Griffin* (born August 8, 1939) is a retired American professor of philosophy of religion and theology, and a political writer. Along with John B. Cobb, Jr., he founded the Center for Process Studies in 1973, a research center of Claremont School of Theology



Despite his field of expertise, Griffin has shown himself to be a highly capable researcher and writer on several topics (not just 9/11 related) outside of that field. His citations and sources are, as a general rule, impeccable, often appealing to non-controversial physical evidence and the best credentialed authorities available in his chosen subjects.

You know, Daws, you've become so predictable with the incessant ad homs, the copy-and-paste jobs, and the near complete lack of response to your opponents' points, that I think I'm just about through with you.

Shoo! Adults are talking now.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Maybe there wasn't thermite after all, maybe it was termite - cartoon freakin' termites.

WTC7 comes down just like a cartoon building that was attacked by cartoon termites!
People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.

4:00


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

But of course they would need to be Islamic fundamentalist termites....


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> ...I'd be remiss to let such a _trenchant_ criticism slide on by without a stitch of explicit support.
> 
> So, let's take "the pieces he uses as evidence" in the order he used them in his _hogwash-laden_ essay, shall we?
> 
> Since you made the charge, I'll allow you to start our little interactive exercise.


Let's start with Harrit's paper.

Have you read it?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


It's not the furthest thing from the truth.

You read that crap from somewhere and ran with it. That's your version of "caring about the truth"? You even admitted it, "No one said it was in the wrong corner". You didn't even investigate anything. You just believed it.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.


How ironic for you to say this!


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Of course, the questions  remain:
> 
> 
> How did temperatures reach in excess of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit in the WTC fires and rubble (actually, in line with several highly credible and fully credentialed eyewitnesses who reported seeing pools of molten steel below the debris piles, it must have been significantly hotter even than that)?


Are you telling me you believe people can actually tell the difference visually that something is molten steel as opposed to something else? Could it have been molten aluminum?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Nooo, I thought it was the correct corner because it was at the same intersection and it was taped off in the same unusual manner, using a garbage can pulled into the middle of the street. I even stated that the engine should have traveled in a direction different from where I incorrectly thought it was found. Since "No one said it was in the wrong corner" I was not aware of my mistake.  I was "investigating" the engine thing in real time and I was using this place as a sounding board. Beavis and Butthead of course were useless in calling attention to the specifics of my mistake.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > People are so used to seeing stuff like this they'll believe anything.
> ...


You're the one saying WTC7 came down like a cartoon --because of an office fire!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


oh no the physics ploy !
you asshats really  should learn some physics before you make those kind of statements .


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > griffin is about as qualified to comment on 911 as a lumber jack is qualified to do brain surgery.
> ...


*Friday, May 11, 2007*
David Ray Griffin interviews. I could only make it about 16 minutes into this interview before wanting to smash my head against the monitor.

George Kenney: David’s analysis is an important litmus test for intellectual honesty. I am not saying he is right about everything or that one must agree with him, but intellectual rigor and neutral methodology are clearly on his side. 
You have got to be kidding me. This is the guy who wrote "These reports of having seen a missile or a small military plane [at the Pentagon] must, accordingly, be given more weight."in his book, when he didn't even list a single report that fit that description. Intellectual rigor indeed.

Here Griffin explains why he writes such crap:


Griffin: Process theology and philosophy is inclusive, and deals with the interconnection of various disciplines that have been kept apart by too many forms of thought. One of those is science and religion. So a lot of my work has been, not in theology proper but in philosophy and religion with a heavy emphasis on philosophy of science. In fact several of my books are on science and religion, and the philosophy of science.
Kenney: So you are following Alfred North Whitehead I guess?
Griffin: Yes, his philosophy made the interconnection of science and religion the most important issue. And so that was uh, and important part of my background. And secondly, this form of thought stresses the interconnection of religion and politic. So I had also done quite a bit of thinking about political matters….
I would have to agree completely, this guy applies religious-like beliefs in his cause to science in ways that would make the most fervent televangelist jealous.

Now this part I couldn’t believe. Keep in mind, this is not just some guy I found on the Internet who only watched his first Youtube video yesterday. This is supposedly the most learned mind the 9/11 deniers can come up with. The guy has written 5 books on 9/11 for God’s sake, and yet he will still say crap like this:


Griffin: Likewise, when they finally confront the evidence that there was molten metal under the towers and building 7.
Kenney:For a considerable period of time after the event.
Griffin: Oh, weeks if not months. And it was still in a molten state when people were… crane operators were pulling out the beams and said it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel.

What? Did he really just say that? Let me rewind this and play that again…
"it was dripping molten steel at the end, which is just what you would expect if it was explosives that had sliced the steel. "You have got to be kidding me. Explosives don’t melt steel, least of all not months after they are used. They do their work through pressure, not intense lasting heat. Whenever they blow up a hotel in Vegas do you see the fire department spending weeks hosing down the red hot debris afterwards before they can clean it up? No, once the dust settles you can go pick it up if you want.

And this is the best they got?

Update: Griffin later argues that the steel in the towers could not have weakened unless they were exposed to fires for several hours, because steel is a good conducter of heat, and the heat would be conducted away from the source of the fires almost instantly. He does not explain, however, how this works with his previous theory, that once steel is molten, it dissipates heat so poorly that it manages to stay in this molten state for weeks after that.
Labels: David Ray Griffin, Debunking 9/11 Debunking


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

*David Ray Griffin* is a former philosophy and theology professor (specifically, emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California) and current moonbat conspiracy theorist. He wrote a load of theology texts in his pre-truther days, mostly dealing with theology and postmodernism. He claims to have evidence of a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 tragedy and Osama bin Laden's death, and he has written several books on the subject.
His first and most famous work of trutherism is _The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11_. Naturally, it's a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work _in toto_, but merely attempts to poke holes in the "official account" like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc Cui Bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as "experts." All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.
He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, _Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action_).


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


Like a cartoon huh?

Answer a question for me. David Chandler showed a graph of the supposed free fall period right?

If that graph supposedly shows that all the steel was cut at the same time to produce that freefall period, explain why there is .8 seconds worth of slower than freefall just before. Are you saying that the section above the cut steel just hanged in the air for a few seconds like a cartoon before deciding to drop?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


What a crock!

You came into a thread and used that little piece of "evidence" to try and bolster your conspiracy beliefs. You used this in conjunction with the "how did the sizable plane parts" exit the tower. If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".

You read that crap on the the 911foreknowledge.com website where you got one of the pictures from.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





Gamolon said:


> Like a cartoon huh?


You got it, just like Popeye's house from cartoon termites.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


So why was there a non-freefall period prior to the freefall period in Chandler's graph? What does that indicate to you?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


sure just like the anvil in road runner cartoons


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


actually that make more sense than the bad spy movie script you are pushing


----------



## daws101 (Dec 2, 2014)




----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Listen, frankly I don't care what you think. Although I do like that you think you know how I would go about doing things.
Tell me all-knowing one, what number am I thinking of?
And how dumb is this:


Gamolon said:


> If you were truly investigating the engine location because you weren't sure, you wouldn't have come into that thread and use a piece of evidence you were "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about".



So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??


Why would you use a piece of evidence you weren't sure was correct or not to prove a point?

That's just asinine.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > ...I'd be remiss to let such a _trenchant_ criticism slide on by without a stitch of explicit support.
> ...


While you're digesting the Harrit paper, here's a quote from Griffin's site that you linked to previously.


> But when they got to the 6th floor, there was a huge explosion, which blew the landing out from under them and blocked their path. They went back up to the 8th floor, broke a window, and signaled for help.
> 
> Firemen came to rescue them, Jennings said, but then ran away. Coming back after a while, the firemen again started to rescue them, but then ran away again. They had to run away the first time, Jennings explained, because of the collapse of the South Tower, which occurred at 9:59, and the second time because of the North Tower collapse, which occurred at 10:28.


Based on the above quote, explain Barry Jennings' quote from the interview below, starting at 11:42:



> When we made it back to the 8th floor... as I told you earlier...both buildings were still standing... because I looked... two... looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there.


What does the "I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there" quote mean? In the time he swiveled his head to look in two directions, they collapsed?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 2, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > So in essence, if I were "truly investigating" something I wouldn't use what I was "currently investigating" and "weren't sure about" for that investigation??
> ...


Holy Shit already, tell me -what was the point I was trying to prove?


----------



## RoshanNair (Dec 2, 2014)

9/11 was done by Obama. Everyone knows that!


----------



## Capstone (Dec 3, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Let's start with Harrit's paper.



As I said before, first things first. Obviously, an in-depth discussion on Harrit's paper alone could easily go on for days or even weeks; and if we start there, we may never get around to discussing the overwhelming majority of evidential "garbage" used by Griffin in his hogwashed essay!

YOU made the following unqualified,wide-sweeping, and completely unsupported claim...



Gamolon said:


> ...Griffin's essay is hogwash. The pieces he uses as evidence are garbage.



...and I'm not going to let it slide without demanding that you back it up chronologically, piece by piece.

Now, whether you choose to do so or not remains to be seen, so I'll briefly address the simpler points and questions you raised (simpler, that is, relative to fleshing-out the technical aspects of Harrit's study, which we can nonetheless take in its turn), but unless your next reply to me starts with the evidence at the beginning of Griffin's essay and works down from there, I won't continue in this discussion. I'm not going to be spun all over the place like your personal dreidel.

So, very quickly...



Gamolon said:


> Are you telling me you believe people can actually tell the difference visually that something is molten steel as opposed to something else? Could it have been molten aluminum?



Hmm ... I suppose it could have been! 

Too bad we don't have any other physical evidence that would justify leaning one way or the other, you know, like maybe a chunk of swiss-cheesified structural steel (documented by FEMA)...or an independent study or two that verified both massive quantities of metal spheres in WTC dust samples ...AND temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” (3,180°F - per the RJ Lee study) and at which “molybdenum had been melted” (4,753°F - per the USGS study). 

Oh well. 



Gamolon said:


> What does the "I looked one way, looked the other way, now there's nothing there" quote mean? In the time he swiveled his head to look in two directions, they collapsed?



Well, just like you, I can only hazard a guess; but probably _unlike_ yours, mine would be based on the totality of Jennings' testimony (which, it should be noted, remained consistent from the day of the incident right up to the day of his death); and that is that he looked at both buildings prior to their respective _collapses_ from his position on the 8th floor. Accordingly, by "now [I.E. upon his arrival at the 8th floor following the explosion that destroyed everything from the 6th floor down) there's nothing there", he meant there was "nothing there" in the way of post-collapse destruction from either of the Twins. This interpretation, BTW, is immediately supported by Jennings in the video you posted. From 12:06 to 12:15, "_Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran - they came twice. Why? Because building-tower 1 fell; then tower 2 fell._" - this indicates that he was on the 8th floor before either tower fell.

Now let's get on with you supporting your claim.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 3, 2014)

Capstone said:


> ...and I'm not going to let it slide without demanding that you back it up chronologically, piece by piece.
> 
> Now, whether you choose to do so or not remains to be seen, so I'll briefly address the simpler points and questions you raised (simpler, that is, relative to fleshing-out the technical aspects of Harrit's study, which we can nonetheless take in its turn), but unless your next reply to me starts with the evidence at the beginning of Griffin's essay and works down from there, I won't continue in this discussion. I'm not going to be spun all over the place like your personal dreidel.


I guess the discussion is ended then.

You're not going to ask me to present what I think is garbage and then dictate the way I present it. I presented Harrit' paper first. If you want to use lame "chronological" and "it'll take too long" excuses as reasons to not discuss items I bring to the table, that's your problem.

I brought Harrit's paper to the table first. Either discuss it or hide behind your excuses. Your choice.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


I did not see the graph, however:

A non-freefall period would indicate nothing in terms of how the building was brought down. A non-freefall period (a small one at that) and the use of explosives for example would not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
On the the other hand, the freefall period could only occur after total removal of any and all supporting structures - no resistance to the falling mass. < This happened!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


since it's  an impossibility for you or any twoofer to investigate objectively none of the above is relevant


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.

You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


for only 2.5 seconds  all that means is that for that tiny amount of time the face of wtc7 hit nothing as it fell. well within the laws of probability
and is no indication of explosive use.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

nowhere do these folks mention conspiracy or a trace of explosives.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.
> 
> You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.


you don't know dick about physics or what constitutes fact.
it's laughable you yammer on about agendas that is all you have, no evidence no credibility
my agenda if I had one is to separate fact for the fiction you assholes have created about 9/11/01.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





daws101 said:


> well within the laws of probability


hahahaaa 

It free fell through 8 stories of the building!!


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...





CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


and? your point?
oh that's, right you have none


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!


so as always you need to make shit up as you have no real proof
speaking of clowns, you're Corny the brown nosed clown.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


oh and since it was the façade, it's impossible for it to fall through that OR ANY BUILDING.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Yes that would be your type of logic, dismiss basic physics or other facts because they don't fit your agenda.
> 
> You're a fraud and you prove it over and over and over again.


how am I a fraud....?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Your agenda is to get recruited by Barnum and Bailey's Circus - your a lying f'n clown!
> ...


To show that I'm a nice guy and I mean well - a word of advice ...
(You might want to save yourself some embarrassment and delete that before someone actually reads it)


----------



## daws101 (Dec 3, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


nothing I've said is embarrassing....to me or anyone who's not conspiracy obsessed or mentally unstable.
that leaves you out...
a twoofer giving advice......the irony!
still no proof I'm a fraud....


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Obviously you are the one that's obsessed, you're on here as much as anyone "defending" the "official conspiracy theory" that you claim needs no defending against a truth movement that's "dead"  -- or perhaps there's really something you're afraid of??


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


That's where you're wrong.

The non free fall period indicates that something was in the process of failing/losing strength and NOT immediately severed. The fact that there WAS a non-freefall period indicates that your belief that all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time is complete fallacy. If what you claim was true, free-fall would have begun the moment the roof started it's downward movement when all the supports were severed.

Get it now?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.

As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
Put another way:
The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.'

But you already know that....


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.
> 
> As to you're point, and I didn't see the model so I am not conceding a .8 second non free fall period.
> But if it's as you say, you're making the assumption that what caused the .8 second of non free fall movement is the same "event" that caused the 8 story free fall.
> ...


No it wasn't a different event.

The point on the roofline that was used to measure free-fall movement, from beginning (the non-free-fall past AND the free-fall part) to end, moved downward along with the REST of the roofline. Whatever event initiated the downward movement of the roofline affected the WHOLE roofline.

Do you not even understand what truthers are claiming? They say that the entirety of what remained of WT7 came down SYMMETRICALLY. That all vertical supports for eight floors were severed. That is why there was 2.25 seconds of free-fall. There cannot be different parts of the building falling at different times or speeds. That goes against everyting they are claiming.

Or are you disagreeing with what the other truthers believe?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.


Then what was it? Couldn't have been explosives because that would have generated immediate free-fall.

Consider this also. The graph that shows free-fall is an AVERAGE of data points taken at various times during the roofline descent. An AVERAGE based on points HIGHER and LOWER than free-fall speeds. How do you explain those data points?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


wow the classic IT'S you who's nuts and not me defense.
every psyco nut sack ever has used that ploy.
as to your oft used complete misrepresentation there is no official conspiracy..


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > For starters I never said "all the supports over 8 floors were severed at the same time." Obviously each floor could be 'removed' progressively, so long as they offered no resistance. Still, all I said was that it experienced a free fall through 8 stories.
> ...


What we see is ABSOLUTELY a building coming down SYMMETRICALLY.
NIST knew for this to occur it would require all the columns on any given floor to give way at precisely the same time and this would need to occur for every floor -an impossibility for an office fire.  So they came up with the crazy story that as we watch the building with seemingly nothing happening it's actually collapsing in a haphazard Asymmetrical manner on the inside -with the outer building shell hiding this from view - then the shell collapses symmetrically.

Different events, like pistons firing in an engine are unique events -they may start slow and accelerate   -the motion of the car however is one continuous flow


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


that's not the best bullshit I read all day ,but it's close.

before you use a word know what it means..
*Definition of symmetrical (adj)*
Bing Dictionary

*sym·met·ri·cal*
[ si méttrik'l ]

exhibiting symmetry: in which parts on either side of a central dividing line correspond to each other or are identical to each other
balanced: relating to or having balanced proportions, especially in two halves of a whole
with pairs of points: describes two points that can be joined by a line bisected by a specific point or perpendicular, or a shape that has such pairs of points


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > The roof starting it's descent isn't necessarily caused by the same thing as that which caused the 8 story free fall -- it could be the result of something that occurred first in a series of rapidly occurring 'events.
> ...


How about you explain to me how the columns throughout the entire horizontal plane of the building collapse at precisely the same time for every floor? - and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 4, 2014)

daws101 said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


Speaking of shit, shouldn't you be shoveling elephant dung at the circus right about now?


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


they did not! end of explanation.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...



Given the events of 9/11 - a high speed impact with a large passenger jet and the ensuing chaotic fires - severing all the columns on any given floor to give way at _*precisely the same time*_ would have been an impossibility.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


No, it wasn't symmetrical. 

The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the interior, then the facade came down. Why is it that you truthers continually use half truths to try and prove a point?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


There weren't columns "throughout the entire horizontal plane" that collapsed for every floor. The east penthouse and the structure below collapsed 6 seconds prior to the facade. As has been explained to you, there were three phases. The east penthouse collapsed first, followed by the collapse progression to the west of the rest of the interior, then the facade. 



CAPTCHATHIS said:


> - and how it happens on 8 separate floors in a manner that they offer no resistance?


There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed. The graph of the free fall period is an AVERAGE. The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.

Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





Gamolon said:


> The data points in the graph show points both above and below free fall speeds.





Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...





Gamolon said:


> There WAS resistance. I just explained it to you. There was resistance prior to the free-fall period as the remaining structure failed.



Listen numbnuts, I'm not going to play ring around the rosie with you. You admit there is a period of free fall. For that to occur it would require no resistance. As far your contention that the free fall period is an average - well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance


----------



## Capstone (Dec 4, 2014)

In the spirit of the season, I've had a change of heart!


Gamolon said:


> ...If you want to use lame "chronological" and "it'll take too long" excuses as reasons to not discuss items I bring to the table, that's your problem. ...



Those "lame excuses" of mine weren't intended to justify an evasion on my part of _any_ item of 'evidential garbage' you chose to bring to the table from Griffin's essay; they were intended to ensure that you eventually brought EVERY such item (including Harrit's paper) to the table, since that's what it would take to support your unqualified claim. I wasn't out to worm-out of the discussion; I was out to prevent _you_ from worming-out of backing up just one of your many laughably broad statements on this board.

Of course, your failure to adequately support your claim is no skin off my nose, especially since I've expected as much all along.

In fact, in our brief interaction in this particular thread, you've given me no reason thus far to expect that our discussion on any number of issues would likely result in anything but your own humiliation.



Gamolon said:


> ...I brought Harrit's paper to the table first. Either discuss it or hide behind your excuses. Your choice.



Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > CAPTCHATHIS said:
> ...


false!
btw the word your looking for would be simultaneously.
and no the north face of wtc7  fell neither symmetrically  or   simultaneously.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> ...Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.


The same thing they'd mean in any multi-stage video analysis of a known controlled demolition: namely how much material resistance was circumvented (removed) via implosion in order to initiate the building's collapse. In the case of WTC 7, it was apparently around 100 sq. feet (most likely the first 8 or so floors), aspects of which were likely removed in stages during the course of the day (as supported by the unwavering testimony of Barry Jennings and the earliest version of Michael Hess's testimony). One thing the NIST group's concession of 2 and a quater seconds worth of gravitational acceleration demands is the removal of all physical resistance to the downward motion, including any resistance from the concrete bearing walls (the so-called "facade") as they purportedly pulverized themselves into dust. In other words: a clear violation of the third law of motion.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > ...Why don't you answer a question for once and explain what those above and below free fall data point mean in terms of a collapsing building.
> ...


nice theory but no explosives or accelerants of any kind were found at any of the wtc sites or the pentagon or shanksville.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 4, 2014)

Newton's Third Law can fail in a number of cases:

There is a time delay in the equations of motion, such as is the case for electrodynamics (as opposed to electrostatics). What is happening here is that the field that mediates the interaction is itself storing momentum. There is no room for such in Newton's 3rd. As mentioned before, this can be reconciled by observing that momentum is still conserved. Newton's 3rd law is conservation of momentum in the special case that forces are instantaneous and central in nature.
The force is not central in nature, which once again is the case for electrodynamics. In the strong form of Newton's third law, third law force pairs must be equal but opposite in nature _and_ the force must be directed along or against the line connecting the pair of particle. This form of Newton's third law conserves both translational and angular momentum. Translational and angular momentum can still be conserved in the case of non-central forces if the mediating field stores these momenta, but Newton's third does not apply in such cases.
The underlying interaction inherently involves three or more particles. Newton's third demands that forces be resolvable down to pairs of particles. There are some multi-body interactions in quantum mechanics where the interactions only appears when three or more particles are present. These interactions cannot be isolated down to pairs, and once again Newton's third law fails.

In more advanced physics, it is the conservation laws that reign supreme. Newton's third law derives from the conservation laws with the assumption that forces act in pairs, act instantaneously, and act along the line connecting particle pairs. Drop those assumptions and you have to drop Newton's third law. You do not have to drop the conservation laws, however. In even higher level physics, the conservation laws themselves can be derived from the very nature of space and time.

Can Newton s Third Law Of Motion Be Violated 

 there are no examples of newton's third law being violated by explosives


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 4, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...



Because the truth just doesn't serve their agenda.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 5, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.


According to Harrit's paper, he had four samples of dust. One from Ms. Janette MacKinlay (sample 1), Mr. Frank Delassio (sample 2), Mr. Jody Intermont (sample 3), and Mr. Stephen White (sample 4).


> *2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
> *
> For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
> the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
> ...



There was two criteria Harrit used to extract chips from each sample listed above for further testing. The criteria was that the chips had to have red and gray layers AND be attracted to a magnet.


> The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
> collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the
> dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was
> used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The
> ...



Having isolated the chips he wanted using the criteria above, he performed further tests outlined in the paper.

Based on those tests he came to the conclusion that he found some form of thermite.


> Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
> layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
> dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
> nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
> explosive material.



Never in his paper does he say that any chip isolated and tested had ever turned out to be anything other than thermitic. Based on his paper, he has proven that if you extract ANY red/gray chips with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust, those chips are without a doubt, thermitic. This thinking is further supported with the video below starting at 7:26. Harrit has a bag of WTC dust which he informs the audience to pass around and use the magnet to isolate what he says to be thermitic chips.

Do you agree with these points thus far?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance


Funny how you didn't address the points that were less than free-fall.

Gotta love it!


----------



## Capstone (Dec 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Do you agree with these points thus far?



With the caveats that:


the failure to mention (or indeed _find_) any _non-reactive_ magnetic red/gray chips in the 4 samples used by Harrit's group ...does *not* entail a concession that none were present in those samples (I.E. it could be the case that no such chips were tested for their explosive reactivity to heat, or to determine their elemental compositions),  
and the provenance of the dust from the 5-gallon jar that "emerged recently" from NYC, which was used for Harrit's impromptu experiment with the audience at the Toronto hearings, wasn't mentioned.
Please continue.


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> CAPTCHATHIS said:
> 
> 
> > well any period where the speed is greater than free fall would require no resistance plus an additional force or a downward force far greater than just gravity to overcome any resistance
> ...


Knucklehead, your not loving anything.  This is the original conspiracy theory* you are defending* and you've just admitted to periods of greater than free-fall speed - requiring a force additional to gravity.  This is your theory to explain and defend. *
You can't.*


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 5, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Do you agree with these points thus far?
> ...



Oh, I beg to differ. Here is an interview where Harrit says there were indeed active and dead red/gray chips and that it takes skill to find the active ones. Take a listen starting at 1:23 in the video below. He also states in this video from 2009 that these are some of the things they are currently (in 2009) investigating. So he had both active and dead chips yet reported on only the active ones. Very curious. Haven't heard any further tests or studies regarding the dead chips either. That was 5 years ago.



Capstone said:


> and the provenance of the dust from the 5-gallon jar that "emerged recently" from NYC, which was used for Harrit's impromptu experiment with the audience at the Toronto hearings, wasn't mentioned.
> Please continue.


That's fine.

That being said, Jim Millette did a study and extracted red/gray chips with a magnet and found different chips (whether you think they are paint or not does not matter here). It was then said by Stephen Jones that probably had the wrong material.


> * More and more, it appears that Millette was simply not looking at the same material that we studied.*


Letter regarding red gray chip analyses 911Blogger.com

So how did Millette have the wrong chips if Harrit supposedly already proved that if anyone simply extracts red/gray chips with a magnet, they'll have thermtic chips?

If you agree with Jones that Millette had the wrong chips, then please explain to me what other tests/criteria from Harrit's paper one must perform on the magnetically attracted red/gray chips to be sure that they are the right ones.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 5, 2014)

CAPTCHATHIS said:


> Knucklehead, your not loving anything.  This is the original conspiracy theory* you are defending* and you've just admitted to periods of greater than free-fall speed - requiring a force additional to gravity.  This is your theory to explain and defend.
> *You can't.*


Why did you not address the less than free-fall data points. This means resistance. 
So what resistance was being encountered?


----------



## CAPTCHATHIS (Dec 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> So what resistance was being encountered?



A great deal of resistance is being encountered ...from you! You can't explain greater than free-fall speeds -which require a force additional to gravity. *This is yours to explain. It's your theory.* And for what it's worth a period of less than free-fall speed /resistance does not preclude the use of explosives or something similar but that is irrelevant. You can't have greater than free-fall speed without some additional force -it's impossible - so explain to us how it happened!


----------



## Capstone (Dec 5, 2014)

I have to hand it to you, Daws; of the lengths OCTers have gone to justify holding on to their ridiculous story-lines, your copied-and-pasted crap has now officially taken the cake as the longest I've seen to date! 



daws101 said:


> Newton's Third Law can fail in a number of cases: ...



First of all, that statement is, at best, horribly misleading.

This, for instance:



daws101 said:


> There is a time delay in the equations of motion, such as is the case for electrodynamics (as opposed to electrostatics). What is happening here is that the field that mediates the interaction is itself storing momentum. There is no room for such in Newton's 3rd. As mentioned before, this can be reconciled by observing that momentum is still conserved. Newton's 3rd law is conservation of momentum in the special case that forces are instantaneous and central in nature.


...doesn't exemplify a "fail[ure]" of Newton's Third Law; it describes a measurable absorption effect of a momentum-storing field, the measurement of which can and should be considered _part_ of the 'equal-yet-opposite' reaction' in question.

So, tell me, Daws, what do you believe acted as such a mediating field on 9/11/01; and why do you think it wasn't mentioned in any of the NIST group's official reports? 



daws101 said:


> The force is not central in nature, which once again is the case for electrodynamics. In the strong form of Newton's third law, third law force pairs must be equal but opposite in nature _and_ the force must be directed along or against the line connecting the pair of particle. This form of Newton's third law conserves both translational and angular momentum. Translational and angular momentum can still be conserved in the case of non-central forces if the mediating field stores these momenta, but Newton's third does not apply in such cases.


Again, yes it does, exactly as I stated above. Even in electrodynamics (which, BTW, doesn't seem  particularly relevant to building 7's _collapse_), neither the measurable absorption rate of a non-central force's mediating field nor the mitigating effects of that force's characteristic non-centrality should be separated from the 'equal-yet-opposite' equation. The fact that certain electrodynamic interactions don't _appear_ to promulgate equitable reactions ...can always be explained in terms of the measurable physical circumstances that mitigated those _appearances_, *without ever violating* the third law of motion.

I _am_ curious, though; what type of non-central force do you think was at play in promulgating the _apparent_ violation of Newton's Law on 9/11; and why do you believe the NIST report on WTC7 failed to mention it?



daws101 said:


> The underlying interaction inherently involves three or more particles. Newton's third demands that forces be resolvable down to pairs of particles. There are some multi-body interactions in quantum mechanics where the interactions only appears when three or more particles are present. These interactions cannot be isolated down to pairs, and once again Newton's third law fails.


Notice the disingenuous failure to mention the types of particles involved in those multi-body interactions, the natures of which (much like those of interacting non-central forces in electrodynamics), may well explain the appearance of non-equitable reactions observed *in that still highly theoretical branch of physics otherwise known as QM.*



daws101 said:


> In more advanced physics, it is the conservation laws that reign supreme. Newton's third law derives from the conservation laws *with the assumption that forces act in pairs, act instantaneously, and act along the line connecting particle pairs.* [...][empasis Capstone's]



Bullshit!

Newton's laws derive from conservation laws, including those that regulate the forces and fields that sometimes mitigate the appearance of reactive equability.

But tell me, Daws; theoretically speaking here, what novel thing do you imagine  happened at the subatomic level on 9/11/01 that resulted in the apparent violation of the third; and why do you feel it was missed by the government's science lackeys at NIST?



daws101 said:


> there are no examples of newton's third law being violated by explosives



No shit?!

It's never been violated during a fire-induced, progressive collapse either, despite what the NIST report would apparently have us believe.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 5, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Oh, I beg to differ. Here is an interview where Harrit says there were indeed active and dead red/gray chips and that it takes skill to find the active ones. ...



I think you're missing the point, Gams.

My statement was written in response to this:



Gamolon said:


> . . .Never in his paper does he say that any chip isolated and tested had ever turned out to be anything other than thermitic. Based on his paper, he has proven that if you extract ANY red/gray chips with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust, those chips are without a doubt, thermitic. ...



The failure to mention in the paper that any dead magnetic red/gray chips were found doesn't justify the conclusion you've apparently pinned on Harrit's group, namely that "ANY red/gray chips [extracted] with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust [...] are without a doubt, thermitic", much less dead or alive. Such a conclusion would, in fact, be an appeal to silence.



Gamolon said:


> ...So he had both active and dead chips yet reported on only the active ones. Very curious. ...



Not curious at all, really, especially considering the title of the study: _*Active* __Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 __[bold emphasis mine]. _Why report on any thermitic material that may have degraded to the point of _inactivity_ in such an aptly titled paper? The discovery of active thermitic material (with a military-grade signature - including barium) is strong enough to stand on its own without further trying to gage the dead-to-active ratios in the 4 samples.



Gamolon said:


> ...If you agree with Jones that Millette had the wrong chips, then please explain to me what other tests/criteria from Harrit's paper one must perform on the magnetically attracted red/gray chips to be sure that they are the right ones.



If, by the "right chips", Jones was referring to the active ones (I.E those not yet degraded to the point of inactivity), it's hard to say, because the chemical compositions of dead and alive chips would presumably be identical. The only way to parse the good ones from the duds may be to heat them to the point of ignition and watch the fireworks or lack thereof, as the case may be.

It's pretty clear to me what's most likely happened here to differentiate the two studies. Harrit's group reported on the active chips; Millette et al reported on the inactive ones.


----------



## n0spam4me (Dec 6, 2014)

The preceding has been an exercise in nit picking, the fact is that because the best fit curve for the data describes 9.8 m/s^2 and because of the tonnage of the bit that was observed falling, one can not expect deviations in the data as was plotted, therefore the data points that fall outside the curve are anomalies and can be attributed to camera vibration or other factors that cause the data points to deviate from the true curve.  With that now out of the way, the fact that many tons of material, no matter what excuse is attempted here, the fact is that there was sufficient material in the North & West walls of WTC7 to have what was observed falling keep its shape as it fell and vertical nature of the event can be confirmed by observing the line of the north/west corner of the building.
Events such as controlled demolitions have components such as this, that is vertical descent of the building, this was a planned event, somebody intended for the building to do exactly what it did.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 6, 2014)

n0spam4me said:


> The preceding has been an exercise in nit picking, the fact is that because the best fit curve for the data describes 9.8 m/s^2 and because of the tonnage of the bit that was observed falling, one can not expect deviations in the data as was plotted, therefore the data points that fall outside the curve are anomalies and can be attributed to camera vibration or other factors that cause the data points to deviate from the true curve.  With that now out of the way, the fact that many tons of material, no matter what excuse is attempted here, the fact is that there was sufficient material in the North & West walls of WTC7 to have what was observed falling keep its shape as it fell and vertical nature of the event can be confirmed by observing the line of the north/west corner of the building.
> Events such as controlled demolitions have components such as this, that is vertical descent of the building, this was a planned event, somebody intended for the building to do exactly what it did.



Woo ... you really ARE afraid to confront Gamolon directly, Princess. Each time he has accepted your challenge to play "Science" you have run away and hidden FOR WEEKS. Either stand behind your silliness (and get your butt kicked) or STFU.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2014)

Capstone said:


> I have to hand it to you, Daws; of the lengths OCTers have gone to justify holding on to their ridiculous story-lines, your copied-and-pasted crap has now officially taken the cake as the longest I've seen to date!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nist never said it did, there you go making shit up again


----------



## daws101 (Dec 6, 2014)

So, when I take a dump into a toilet, the fact that my turd drops into the water at Free Fall acceleration is proof that the United States government planted explosives in my ass?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 6, 2014)

Capstone said:


> ...It's never been violated during a fire-induced, progressive collapse either, *despite what the NIST report would apparently have us believe.*[emphasis added]





daws101 said:


> nist never said it did, ...



Maybe not explicitly, but in having explicated a global collapse model that never accounted for the absence of resistance from approximately 8 floors worth of building materials in the bearing walls, the NIST report _would_, as I said, "apparently have us believe" that it had been violated.



daws101 said:


> ...there you go making shit up again



Coming from you, Daws, that's simply hilarious.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> So, when I take a dump into a toilet, the fact that my turd drops into the water at Free Fall acceleration is proof that the United States government planted explosives in my ass?



Man, I really had to think(!), in order to come up with something to make your analogy work in concert with what the NIST report told us happened to WTC7. I suppose it might work, if your turd were stood up on-end, had all of its internal supports removed (peanuts, corn, ETC.), leaving an outer shell of crap to pulverize itself largely under its own weight, which it somehow managed to do at freefall acceleration for like 15-20% of the time it took to completely collapse into its own shit-print; but then it wouldn't support your stupidity anymore, so I guess the suggestion isn't really helpful, is it? Oh well, never let it be said that I didn't try to help.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 6, 2014)

Penelope said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...



Perhaps you should look at these three clips and links - Penelope. 

First up........

_If you are serious about the global war, let us try and think strategically. The most important strategic target in that war is the Kremlin. That is not only the best way to start winning it, but, as far as I can see, the only way. Paraphrasing Alexander Litvinenko, we can say it is impossible to destroy international terrorism even in a century unless you disband the Russian secret services first._

- Pavel Stroilov, a Russian exile in London and the editor and translator of Alexander Litvinenko book,Allegations,
The Putin-Osama Connection, FrontPage Magazine, 1/16/08

_September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers._

- Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service,

From Russia With Terror, FrontPage Magazine, 3/1/04
_
Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, five months before the attack. But Iraqi intelligence was just a client of Russia's intelligence service. It brings a new understanding to the fact that President Putin was the first foreign President to call President Bush on 9/11. One may conjecture that he knew in advance what was to happen._

- Konstantin Preobrazhensky, former Lt. Colonel in the KGB who defected to the United States in 1993,

"Russia and Islam are not Separate: Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda"

____________________
Anotoli Galitson - a major in the KGB - highest ranking KGB to defect to America said that the Russians had never ceased from their plan to defeat America.  Too bad the CIA fired his contact and refused to listen to the information they were given.   The Russians have used Communism to infiltrate from within the US but trained Al Qaeda to attack from without.  That is my belief - the people behind Osama Bin Laden were the Russians.  The missing jumbo jet (out of Malaysia)?  I believe that Putin was behind that - and they will use it in due time - against America.   The attack in Boston?  I believe they were behind that as well - there are other missing parts to that story we were never told - one day perhaps it will come out.

What you must have, Penelope, is motive.  The Israelis had no motive to attack the United States of America.  None.  Who had the the strongest motive?  The Russians.  The Communists always need a front guy - in this case - they used Al Qaeda because they trained them and Islam is a perfect diversion - a useful tool for them at this time.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah (Dec 6, 2014)

Jeremiah said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




Here is another link for you to look at, Penelope.
Russia and Islam are not Separate Why Russia backs Al-Qaeda by Konstantin Preobrazhensky
Konstantin Preobrazhensky, a former Lt. Colonel in the KGB who defected to the United States in 1993, is an intelligence expert and specialist on Japan, about which he has written six books. His newest book Russian-American, A New KGB Asset will be published in late 2007. This article was first published by Gerard Group International, Intel Analyses, 31 August 2007.

Americans generally believe that Russia is afraid of Islamic terrorism as much as the U.S.A. They are reminded of the war in Chechnya, the hostage crisis at the Beslan School in 2004 and at the Moscow Theater in 2002, and of the apartment house blasts in Moscow in 1999, where over 200 people were killed. It is clear that Russians are also targets of terrorism today.

But in all these events, the participation of the FSB, Federal Security Service, inheritor to the KGB, is also clear. Their involvement in the Moscow blasts has been proven by lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB Colonel. For this he was illegally imprisoned, and is now suffering torture and deprivation of medical assistance, from which he is not likely to survive.

A key distinction between Russian and American attitudes towards Islamic terrorism is that while for America terrorism is largely seen as an exterior menace, Russia uses terrorism as an object as a tool of the state for manipulation in and outside the home country. Islamic terrorism is only part of the world of terrorism. Long before Islamic terrorism became a global threat, the KGB had used terrorism to facilitate the victory of world Communism.
_______________
To be clear - it is difficult to imagine the cold blooded nature of someone like Putin, the FSB, the Kremlin, but evil has no conscience.  Did they do this to their own people?  I believe they did.  The end justifies the means in their mind.  Deception is the Communist way because they serve Satan.

This is why I say that the Roman Catholic Church and Communism is a far greater threat than Islam.  They are playing both sides - they are using Islam - to achieve an agenda here - when that is accomplished they will turn - look at history.   Does history repeat itself?  Yes or no?

note this ^  the Vatican and the Russians have very strong ties as well - for more info on that look up Father Malachi Martin - Author of The Windswept House - exposing Satanism in the Vatican.  The ties between the Russian Communists and Vatican are real.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 8, 2014)

Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)







Massive fire in downtown LA RT USA


----------



## ninja007 (Dec 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Bush92 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what what happened on 9-11. Some terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings. End of story.
> ...



oh the irony....


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 8, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was that ... 5-6 stories? Was it hit by an airliner? Did it have ANYTHING in common with the WTC (other than the use of steel)? 
You are reaching and still coming up ridiculously short.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> The failure to mention in the paper that any dead magnetic red/gray chips were found doesn't justify the conclusion you've apparently pinned on Harrit's group, namely that "ANY red/gray chips [extracted] with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust [...] are without a doubt, thermitic", much less dead or alive. Such a conclusion would, in fact, be an appeal to silence.


So then what tests or selection criteria in Harrit's paper would one need to use in order to prove that one had a thermitic chip?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 8, 2014)

ninja007 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Bush92 said:
> ...


your funny as hell,irony my ass.there is your ironry above.,agent troll of the government, agent gamolon.

oh and you're a little late talking about a post from ages back.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > ...It's never been violated during a fire-induced, progressive collapse either, *despite what the NIST report would apparently have us believe.*[emphasis added]
> ...


agent dawgsit believes in magic bullets thats oswald was the lone assassin so yeah,he is pretty  hiliarious..lol. aegtn dawgshit defends ALL the governments versions of events constantly around here all the time no matter HOW aburd they are as in the JFK assassination.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 8, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scene from this morning... it collapsed.







Nice try.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 8, 2014)

And it collapsed into it's own footprint, too. 

Inside jobbity-job-job.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 8, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> So then what tests or selection criteria in Harrit's paper would one need to use in order to prove that one had a thermitic chip?



Watch the _Toronto Hearings_ video you posted (from 13:03-21:07), where Harrit describes the methodology for determining the elemental composition of the red layer (iron, silicon, aluminum, oxygen, and carbon), their relative positions within the plastic matrix (indicating iron-oxide and aluminum-silicate formations), and the proof that the aluminum and silicon weren't molecularly bound (via the MEK bath). Now, that's not to say the positive identification of thermitic components is sufficient to determine whether a given chip is active or not. In Harrit's own word's regarding in part the elemental tests, again from the video you posted (between 20:50 and 20:57), "_...it's not the strongest evidence we have [for the presence of "active thermitic material" in the dust samples]; *the strongest evidence we have comes from the reactivity of these chips*_", which may imply a trial-and-error approach, assuming only that the 'shelf-life' might have run out on some of the heat-tested chips.

So, to answer your question more directly, since most of the proofs used to show that Harrit's group had found thermitic chips dealt with the determination of their elemental compositions; and the "strongest" (if not _only_) proof that they'd found *active* thermitic chips was in the reactivity-ignition testing, I'd say a trial and error approach to heat-testing may be the only manner of testing available for determining a chip's response to the proper temperature, and by extension, whether that particular thermitic chip is still active or not.

Next question...


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> ...



Nice slllloooowwww PARTIAL collapse, like a box of melting Crayolas. Not a sudden collapse at free fall speed. Also note that the ENTIRE structure here is CONSUMED by the inferno. Not just a few patchy office fires.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 8, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> ...



No plane hit WTC7. NIST claims the fire alone brought down 7.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 8, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



How do you know it was a slow collapse based on still photos?

Be specific


----------



## daws101 (Dec 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > ...It's never been violated during a fire-induced, progressive collapse either, *despite what the NIST report would apparently have us believe.*[emphasis added]
> ...


may be not explicitly! wtf...
you yammer on incessantly about  nist on  what "they didn't do"
and you still make shit up!


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Watch the _Toronto Hearings_ video you posted (from 13:03-21:07), where Harrit describes the methodology for determining the elemental composition of the red layer (iron, silicon, aluminum, oxygen, and carbon), their relative positions within the plastic matrix (indicating iron-oxide and aluminum-silicate formations), and the proof that the aluminum and silicon weren't molecularly bound (via the MEK bath). Now, that's not to say the positive identification of thermitic components is sufficient to determine whether a given chip is active or not. In Harrit's own word's regarding in part the elemental tests, again from the video you posted (between 20:50 and 20:57), "_...it's not the strongest evidence we have [for the presence of "active thermitic material" in the dust samples]; *the strongest evidence we have comes from the reactivity of these chips*_", which may imply a trial-and-error approach, assuming only that the 'shelf-life' might have run out on some of the heat-tested chips.
> 
> So, to answer your question more directly, since most of the proofs used to show that Harrit's group had found thermitic chips dealt with the determination of their elemental compositions; and the "strongest" (if not _only_) proof that they'd found *active* thermitic chips was in the reactivity-ignition testing, I'd say a trial and error approach to heat-testing may be the only manner of testing available for determining a chip's response to the proper temperature, and by extension, whether that particular thermitic chip is still active or not.
> 
> Next question...


You're not actually answering my question Capstone. All you've provided is word salad. This was supposedly a peer reviewed, scientific paper. One that should be able to be replicated by other scientists if they so choose to see if they come up with the same conclusions as Harrit did.

So I will ask you yet again. Based on Harrit's paper, what criteria/tests listed within does one need to absolutely perform on a chip in order to determine that it is an active thermitic chip? Just list them from the paper.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 8, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


sorry shit head it did collapse due to fire!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 8, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
*The story...WTC7 only had small, limited fires.

Our take...

This is one commonly-shown picture of the WTC7 fires.*

*WTC7 Fire

*


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > Another steel building not collapsing because of fire. (Tonight in downtown LA)
> ...



That is NOT instantaneous global collapse.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
> *The story...WTC7 only had small, limited fires.
> 
> Our take...
> ...



Comparatively small fires burning slow at low temp. That is NOT a fully involved structure fire. 

I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day. There is no way in hell that fire brought down all 3 buildings and certainly not 7.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 8, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> ...This was supposedly a peer reviewed, scientific paper. One that should be able to be replicated by other scientists if they so choose to see if they come up with the same conclusions as Harrit did.
> 
> So I will ask you yet again. Based on Harrit's paper, what criteria/tests listed within does one need to absolutely perform on a chip in order to determine that it is an active thermitic chip? Just list them from the paper.



Heads up, Gams: there's another word-salad coming your way. 

The only aspect of the experimentation portion of the study that wasn't briefly mentioned in the paper's Abstract was the  method of collecting and separating the chips from other particles in the dust.

So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "*2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination*", we read:

"_The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..._"

From there, we need only consult an excerpt from the Abstract to see the remaining necessary steps:

"_The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. *When ignited* in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic._[Bold emphasis mine]"

In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device, which would have shown those particular chips to have been _inactive_ (whether because of expired shelf-lives or some other means of degradation) and thereby irrelevant to the findings that served as the basis *for the title of the paper*.

Follow the steps listed above, and "when ignited" (not a second before), the red/gray chips can rightfully be characterized as "*Active*_ Thermitic Material_", which is pretty much what I said in my previous word-salad.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> The failure to mention in the paper that any dead magnetic red/gray chips were found doesn't justify the conclusion you've apparently pinned on Harrit's group, namely that "ANY red/gray chips [extracted] with a magnet from a pile of WTC dust [...] are without a doubt, thermitic", much less dead or alive. Such a conclusion would, in fact, be an appeal to silence.


Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material". There is no other criteria for further separation of red/gray chips chosen for testing. That's a fact. They separated their chips, ran the series of tests listed in the paper on those separated chips, and concluded that the red layer was thermitic.



Capstone said:


> So, directly from the paper, under the subheading "*2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination*", we read:
> 
> "_The red/gray chips are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates collection and separation of the chips from the bulk of the dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was used to attract and collect the chips from dust samples. The chips are typically small but readily discernible by eye due to their distinctive color. They are of variable size with major dimensions of roughly 0.2 to 3 mm. Thicknesses vary from roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray). ..._"
> 
> ...



Furthermore, if the DSC test was so damn important in determining that chips from each dust pile sample contained an active thermitic material, why were the Delassio DSC test results left out of the paper? Let me guess. Just because Harrit left it out, doesn't mean he didn't do it.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device, which would have shown those particular chips to have been _inactive_ (whether because of expired shelf-lives or some other means of degradation) and thereby irrelevant to the findings that served as the basis *for the title of the paper*.


So let me get this straight. Prior to doing a DSC test, you think they positively identified a thermitic material? Can you explain why you think that? If they had proof that there was thermitic material present, why would proving the existence ACTIVE thermitic material be more convincing?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> In case you missed the significance of the highlighted phrase "when ignited", it's ambiguous enough to account for any unreported instances in which positively identified thermitic chips failed to ignite in the DSC device,


Sorry, but you're wrong.

An excerpt from Harrit's paper regarding the DSC testing.


> *3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry*
> 
> Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential
> scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
> ...



Notice that he says that ALL ignited in the range of 415-435 °C. So your assumption that some chips may have failed to ignite and that Harrit just didn't report has been proven false.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...


neither were the twin tower or wtc7 ....next!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > wrong as always wtc7 burned for 7 hours and was not patchy at all
> ...


as I stated before you are in no way other than in your wildest fantasy A FIRE FIGHTER.
MY GUESS IS, YOU WANTED TO BE A FIRE FIGHTER but failed the psychological evaluation.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 9, 2014)

I have conceived of a brilliant way to test the various hypotheses regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> I have conceived of a brilliant way to test the various hypotheses regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center towers


and?


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 9, 2014)

DAWS----the  WTC did not burn for seven hours-----I watched it
from the start to the downfall-------I did not time it----but it
was more like   1 1/2  hours.       The EXPLOSION  when the plane hit was   ENORMOUS    (I missed the first one---but the
second was mindboggling).     No doubt that impact played
a very considerable role in damaging the supporting structures---big fires are not just fires in places filled with all kinds of
machines and motors and   STUFF----OTHER stuff explodes. 
once it reaches      Uhm  (?)   FLASH POINT   ---especially
weird combinations of plastics---------some little fire on  an erector set structure is no comparison.      Gee----you guys
seem to have missed  high school chemistry in physics----
when I did my chem labs------even my stuff managed
to  EXPLODE      (sometimes-----don't tell-----I pretended
it did not happen----)


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 9, 2014)

I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.

I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
I simply refused to vote.    I went to the polls-----but as a reached
out to pass the lever RIGHT------I got a sharp pain in my right
shoulder------so I left


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

*Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update)*
*What was WTC 7?*
The original World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was a 47-story office building located immediately to the north of the main World Trade Center (WTC) complex. Completed in 1987, it was built on top of an existing Con Edison substation and located on land owned by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
*When did WTC 7 collapse?*
On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 552 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.
*What caused the fires in WTC 7?*
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
*How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?*
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.




Diagram 1-Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures.


*What is progressive collapse?*
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.
Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.
*How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?*
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
*Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?*
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


irosie91 said:


> DAWS----the  WTC did not burn for seven hours-----I watched it
> from the start to the downfall-------I did not time it----but it
> was more like   1 1/2  hours.       The EXPLOSION  when the plane hit was   ENORMOUS    (I missed the first one---but the
> second was mindboggling).     No doubt that impact played
> ...


bullshit !
north tower 102 minutes
south tower  56 minutes ,102min +56 min = 158 minutes
total time in hours 2 hours 38mins..


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.
> 
> I have never voted republican in my life-----when Kerry ran----
> I simply refused to vote.    I went to the polls-----but as a reached
> ...


 I could give a shit what political party you're in..


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 9, 2014)

daws101 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I make no apologies if you consider yourself a Republican. I am a registered Independent and have voted Republican at various levels of government, but the current crop of Republicans at the national level are off the reservation. To call them bat shit crazy would be an insult to bat shit.
> ...



you could?    who would want your shit?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 9, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day.


How long have you been a firefighter?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 9, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material".
> 
> There is no other criteria for further separation of red/gray chips chosen for testing. That's a fact. They separated their chips, ran the series of tests listed in the paper on those separated chips, and concluded that the red layer was thermitic.
> 
> ...



I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.

Having said that, there's really no need for me to justify the Harrit group's decisions as to what they reported and what they may have withheld, because what they reported suffienctly proves the premise of their paper, namely that _active_ thermitic material was found in the WTC dust, yes, even if only 3 of the 4 samples yielded active thermitic chips for testing in the DSC device.



Gamolon said:


> ...Prior to doing a DSC test, you think they positively identified a thermitic material? Can you explain why you think that? ...



They'd observed and identified known thermitic components, as well as the uniformity of their relative positions within their common matrix, and had further proven the presence of _elemental_ aluminum. The only thing left to test at that point would have been the question as to whether any the thermitic chips were still active.



Gamolon said:


> ...If they had proof that there was thermitic material present, why would proving the existence ACTIVE thermitic material be more convincing?



People like to see explosions? 

In any case, such testing would have been necessary to support both the paper's conclusion and its title.



Gamolon said:


> An excerpt from Harrit's paper regarding the DSC testing.
> 
> 
> > *3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry*
> ...



The phrase "all ignited" is clearly in reference to the red/gray chips on which the data in Fig. (19) was based, more specifically, to the _reported_ DSC results on those particular chips. In no way does the statement entail the conclusion that all of the group's DSC testing results were reported in the paper. 

In fact, given Harrit's statement in one of the videos you posted earlier - something to the effect that dead chips _had_ been found in the samples, possibly indicating a 'shelf-life' or some other means of degradation (he mentioned the torrential rainfall in the days that followed 9/11), it's reasonable to conclude that not quite all of the heat-testing results were reported in the paper.


----------



## irosie91 (Dec 9, 2014)

thermite is nothing but oxidized iron


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

irosie91 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


it appears you to you keep asking for it!


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > I am a firefighter. I serve with firefighters who were there that day.
> ...


jackass in the box has never said.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Read the below excerpt you posted. I even made certain parts red to help out. Tell me how ANYONE reading that can come up with any other conclusion other than "The red layer of red/gray chips extracted from piles of WTC dust using a magnet is an active thermitic material".
> ...


FOUR CHIPS  heres a little primer on how much thermite would have to be used per column


the point being, that if thermite was used  there should be a whole shit load in the dust not 4 chips.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> They'd observed and identified known thermitic components, as well as the uniformity of their relative positions within their common matrix, and had further proven the presence of _elemental_ aluminum. The only thing left to test at that point would have been the question as to whether any the thermitic chips were still active.


Explain two things to me. 

Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? I thought all the red layers they tested were the same? They say possible contamination, but never do any tests to prove it.

What's even funnier is that Steven Jones, during one of his presentations, shows a slide with the XEDS spectrum of a paint chip scraped from a salvaged column. Have a look at the video here: . The slide is at 150. Why does that spectrum shown in the slide almost exactly match Fig. (14) in the paper? Isn't Fig. (14) supposed to be thermitic material?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 10, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? I thought all the red layers they tested were the same? ...



The red layers they tested _were_ the same; the tests (and testing methods) conducted for the results reported in Fig. (7) and Fig. (14) respectively ...were not the same. As stated in the paper, "_X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses of both the red and gray layers *from cross sections prepared* from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6,7)._" (emphasis mine). Those "cross-sections" provided cleaner surfaces for direct compositional analysis. Accordingly, the XEDS results actually support the supposition that certain elements found via the acetone treatment were likely due to surface contamination, because the very nature of the MEK test didn't allow for the pre-isolation of cross-sections. As stated in the paper, "_Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material.". 
_
It's also important, BTW, to make note of what wasn't found by any of the tests, specifically magnesium, which should have been present in relatively high volumes if the red layers were nothing more than primer paint.
_


Gamolon said:



			What's even funnier is that Steven Jones, during one of his presentations, shows a slide with the XEDS spectrum of a paint chip scraped from a salvaged column. Have a look at the video here: . The slide is at 150. Why does that spectrum shown in the slide almost exactly match Fig. (14) in the paper? Isn't Fig. (14) supposed to be thermitic material?
		
Click to expand...

_
They do not "almost exactly match", Gamster! There are MAJOR differences between Fig.(14)'s trace amounts of zinc and chromium and no magnesium whatsoever vs. the paint chip's *prominent spikes* in all three of those elements (with its second spike of zinc nearly shooting off the chart).

How's about a little honesty from you for a change?


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...



Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 10, 2014)

The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the _Toronto Hearings_ describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):


----------



## daws101 (Dec 12, 2014)

can you say meaningless minutia ...I k


Capstone said:


> The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the _Toronto Hearings_ describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):


 can you say meaningless minutia,  I knew you could.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 12, 2014)

can you say meaningless minutia ...I k


Capstone said:


> The following video excerpt from Harrit's exposition at the _Toronto Hearings_ describes the method for 'prepar[ing]' the 'cross sections' for XEDS analysis and why the results of that analysis differed from the contamination-laden MEK results (between 3:30 and 5:06):


 can you say meaningless minutia,  I knew you could.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 12, 2014)

daws101 said:


> can you say meaningless minutia, ...


Almost as easily as I can say "direct response" to the following question that was asked several days ago by the now conspicuously absent Gameltoe:


			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> . . .Why does Fig. (14) show an XEDS spectrum markedly different from red layers from chips (a) thru (d) in Fig. (7)? ...


But then, English _has_ always been one of my strong suits.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 12, 2014)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > can you say meaningless minutia, ...
> ...


I would say that  gamelon's  non response is a direct answer.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 12, 2014)

daws101 said:


> I would say that  gamelon's  non response is a direct answer.


To the question as to whether or not he or she could even partially support the laughable statement about the evidence cited in Griffin's essay? I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Capstone (Dec 12, 2014)

In all seriousness, I haven't given up on Gamolon yet. Occasional brief hiatuses aren't aways indicative of people running off with their tails between their legs. I've had more than a few myself during my time on this board.


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 13, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.



My chief was there. His brother was killed.  I have been a FF on and off since just after 9/11.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 13, 2014)

Jackinthebox said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Nor does he seem to give any credence to what the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11 said about what they saw and heard. Apparently HIS experience is all he needs to form his conclusions.
> ...


 
I have posted the interviews with the firefighters WHO WERE THERE on 9/11. For some inexplicable reason you have ignored them and continue to spew your baseless conclusions. Do you have something which contradicts what the saw and what they said they did that day?


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 14, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Jackinthebox said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times]

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends that no deaths occurred in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect:

Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed. [Congressional Record]


----------



## Jackinthebox (Dec 14, 2014)

Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti describes resistance to the evacuation by firefighters who wanted to fight the fires in Building 7:

Now, World Trade Center 7 was burning and I was thinking to myself, how come they're not trying to put this fire out? 
... 
At some point, Frank Fellini said, now we've got hundreds of guys out there, hundreds and hundreds, and that's on the West Street side alone. He said to me, Nick, you've got to get those people out of there. I thought to myself, out of where? Frank, what do you want, Chief? He answered, 7 World Trade Center, imminent collapse, we've got to get those people out of there. 
... 
There were a couple of chiefs out there who I knew and I called them individually. I said to them, listen, start backing those people out, we need them back up to the command post. While this was going on, I saw individual company officers. I was whistling, Captain, bring your guys this way. I was getting some resistance. The common thing was, hey, we've still got people here, we don't want to leave. I explained to them that we were worried about 7, that it was going to come down and we didn't want to get anybody trapped in the collapse. One comment was, oh, that building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out? A lot of comments, a bit of resistance, understandable resistance


----------



## daws101 (Dec 15, 2014)

*David Ray Griffin* is a former philosophy and theology professor (specifically, emeritus at Claremont School of Theology in California) and current moonbat conspiracy theorist. He wrote a load of theology texts in his pre-truther days, mostly dealing with theology and postmodernism. He claims to have evidence of a government conspiracy regarding the 9/11 tragedy and Osama bin Laden's death, and he has written several books on the subject.
His first and most famous work of trutherism is _The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11_. Naturally, it's a book-length just asking questions session (indeed, he never explains how the conspiracy would work _in toto_, but merely attempts to poke holes in the "official account" like most other conspiracy theorists), replete with the standard post hoc cui bono reasoning and citations of other cranks as "experts." All the old truther chestnuts are there as well, including WTC7, the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile, the PNAC, and a number of the other greatest hits.
He has also written some material shoehorning Christian theology into trutherism (namely, _Christian Faith and_


----------



## daws101 (Dec 15, 2014)

right! Alex jones TV YOU AND SPAMMY SHOULD GET A PLACE !


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 16, 2014)

Capstone said:


> They do not "almost exactly match", Gamster! There are MAJOR differences between Fig.(14)'s trace amounts of zinc and chromium and no magnesium whatsoever vs. the paint chip's *prominent spikes* in all three of those elements (with its second spike of zinc nearly shooting off the chart).
> 
> How's about a little honesty from you for a change?


They don't?

Fig 14 from Harrit's paper. Notice they fail to label the the spike between Zn and Al as being Mg (I thought you said there was no magnesium present Capstone?). They also failed to label the spike before the first Ca as K. How can such a prominent scientific paper leave out such details? These "left out details" lead people like you to make statements such as "There was no magnesium present" when clearly there was.




Jones' slide showing what he says is paint.




What does each spectrum have in common below was taken from Oystein s 9 11 debates Steven Jones proves primer paint not thermite

0.28keV: both have a high peak for C
0.54keV: both have a high peak for O
0.71keV: both have a medium peak for Fe
1.02keV: both have a small to medium peak for Zn
1.25keV: both have a small peak for Mg
1.49keV: both have a medium peak for Al
1.74keV: both have a medium to high peak for Si
2.31keV: both have a small to medium peak for S
3.31keV: both have a small peak for K
3.69keV: both have a high peak; for sample a-d it is labelled "Ca", for the primer paint it is labled "C". I propose that one of the two lables is in error. Should be Ca in either place[4]
4.01keV: both have a small to medium peak for Ca
5.41keV: both have a small peak for Cr
5.95keV: both have a small peak for Cr
6.40keV: both have a high peak for Fe
7.06keV: both have a small peak for Fe
8.64keV: both have a small peak for Zn
How about a little honesty from YOU for a change. 

Is the red layer from Fig. 14 below from Harrit's paper...




The same material shown below for samples a through d in Fig. 7 of Harrit's paper?




Yes or no?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 16, 2014)

Capstone said:


> I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.


Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.

Unfortunately for you, there is no "guessing".



> *Abstract:* We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
> destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
> this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
> resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
> ...



There is not one sentence in Harrit's paper that speaks about different chips. The paper clearly says that ALL chips extracted and tested from the four samples are unreacted thermitic material. Please quote any section of the paper that gives any impression to the reader that ANY of the red/gray chips, if tested, will turn out to be anything else. Even the damn conclusion at the end of the paper states that all chips they found were unreacted thermitic material. Not "a few chips". Not "some chips". Not "a number of chips". It says "of the red/gray chips we discovered".


> Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
> layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
> dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
> nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
> explosive material.



So if the DSC test is all important, why was it left out? They clearly state that tested chips from all four samples and that the are thermitic material. Yet you want to "guess" that they left out the one sample because it didn't ignite?


----------



## Capstone (Dec 16, 2014)

Gamolon said:
			
		

> Fig 14 from Harrit's paper. Notice they fail to label the the spike between Zn and Al as being Mg (I thought you said there was no magnesium present Capstone?).They also failed to label the spike before the first Ca as K. How can such a prominent scientific paper leave out such details? These "left out details" lead people like you to make statements such as "There was no magnesium present" when clearly there was.



If, as appears might be the case, the small unlabeled spike between the Zn and Al spikes in Fig.(14) is magnesium, then I was wrong to say there was none present in the MEK test results. In such case, I'd also concede the point that I may have been misled, not only by the Harrit group's failure to report on all of the elements in common with primer paint, but also by a number of Harrit's subsequent  statements. *However*, not being familiar with all of the accepted M.O.'s in testing and reporting, I'm not prepared to condemn Harrit's group for not labeling blips that may have been small enough to dismiss as "noise" or tiny traces of primer paint contamination, in which case both the findings reported in Fig.(14) and Harrit's later statements regarding the absence of Mg would be vindicated.

All of that said, neither the presence of primer paint elements in Fig.(14) nor its consequent similarities (again, point conceded) to the known paint chip's elemental composition disproves (or really even addresses) Harrit's explanation that the MEK results were laden with contamination (possibly including that of primer paint) out of necessity, because the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface. This explanation also accounts perfectly well for the apparent differences between the XEDS results (which examined cross sections of cleanly broken chips) and those of the MEK test (which examined the unbroken surface and consequently all of its contaminants).

Most importantly, though, the MEK results could be wholly disregarded and the presence of elemental aluminum would still be indirectly proven in the reactivity shown by the DSC results; unless, of course, you're suggesting that primer paint could undergo a thermitic-like response to temperatures of around 430° C, complete with the production of the iron-rich material that best explains the many iron microspheres observed in the WTC dust (and not just in the Harrit group's study).



Gamolon said:


> Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? ...



Well, because *A) *I'm not a qualified commentator on the Harrit group's field(s) of expertise, and *B) *I'm not privy to the reasoning behind the decision to report the DSC results from only 3 of the 4 samples. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid to admit such things. 



Gamolon said:


> ...Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.
> 
> Unfortunately for you, there is no "guessing".
> 
> ...



Look, I've already pointed out how your forced interpretation of the "all of them" phrase in the case of the reported DSC results ignores the context in which it was used, namely with direct regard to the reported DSC results. I've also steered you to one of Harrit's public admissions that dead chips had indeed been found in the  samples (which would seem to *entail* their failure to ignite during heat testing, since that's the only definitive way to determine whether a given  chip is dead or alive). These observations aren't trivial, Gams, which raises the question as to why you've failed as yet to directly refute either one of them, despite your continued appeal to what may well be a couple of erroneously-interpreted/cherry-picked phrases from the paper. If you're not going to bother with my answers to your questions, then our conversation here will likely never transcend the realm of pointlessness.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 16, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the "small blips" in Fig. 14 were "contamination" within the thermite, then why does Jones consider his slide to be actual primer paint and not the same "thermite with primer paint contamination"? Ridiculous. And it's not just the "non-labeling" of small peaks. It's the paper as a whole.



Capstone said:


> All of that said, neither the presence of primer paint elements in Fig.(14) nor its consequent similarities (again, point conceded) to the known paint chip's elemental composition disproves (or really even addresses) Harrit's explanation that the MEK results were laden with contamination (possibly including that of primer paint) out of necessity,


Possibly?! You mean it wasn't a priority to determine if what he had was actual primer paint or contaminated thermite?! You've got to be kidding me.



Capstone said:


> because the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface. This explanation also accounts perfectly well for the apparent differences between the XEDS results (which examined cross sections of cleanly broken chips) and those of the MEK test (which examined the unbroken surface and consequently all of its contaminants).


Which explanation? Can you point me to the part in the paper that shows it was contamination? Or are you "guessing" again?



Capstone said:


> Most importantly, though, the MEK results could be wholly disregarded and the presence of elemental aluminum would still be indirectly proven in the reactivity shown by the DSC results; unless, of course, you're suggesting that primer paint could undergo a thermitic-like response to temperatures of around 430° C, complete with the production of the iron-rich material that best explains the many iron microspheres observed in the WTC dust (and not just in the Harrit group's study).


What was the gray layer Capstone? What if it was primer paint that was contaminated?

You know what I find mysterious? The fact that people in Harrit's group later ADMITTED they had red primer paint chips yet decided to use tabulated resistivity results from an outside source instead of testing the damn primer paint chips they had in their midst. Why did they not try and ignite primer paint chips that they had from the dust samples instead of using OTHER primer paint samples. What a joke.



Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > Your "guess"?! Why are you guessing regarding items within a published scientific paper? ...
> ...


What happened to the confidence you exuded in the post below just a short while ago Capstone?


Capstone said:


> Go on then, make your case that Harrit's study is a "piece of garbage". I stand ready and willing to defend it, and to highlight the deficiencies in any and all copy-and-pasted arguments you might bring against it.


Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"? Do these admissions somehow exonerate you from providing fully supported answers to my questions regarding Harrit's paper going forward? The problem is it's all in the paper Capstone. You provided nothing but what you "think" the paper is saying and not "what" the paper is actually saying. 



Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > ...Let me remind you of the abstract from the paper itself. Pay particular attention to the portions in red that I have marked. You see the reason you have to "guess" is because that's the only way you can argue the point.
> ...


You've done nothing of the sort. My interpretation is directly from the paper. There is no other interpretation. I've shown you many instances where Harrit's paper refers to "THE chips". There is no indication of other types of red chips in the paper.




Capstone said:


> I've also steered you to one of Harrit's public admissions that dead chips had indeed been found in the  samples (which would seem to *entail* their failure to ignite during heat testing, since that's the only definitive way to determine whether a given  chip is dead or alive).


Talk about forced interpretation! Can you show me in the paper where they say anything about dead or active chips? No? Didn't think so. I can show you ALL kinds of quotes from the paper that show that they think ALL the red chips they extracted from the dust pile were active thermite. 



Capstone said:


> These observations aren't trivial, Gams, which raises the question as to why you've failed as yet to directly refute either one of them, despite your continued appeal to what may well be a couple of erroneously-interpreted/cherry-picked phrases from the paper. If you're not going to bother with my answers to your questions, then our conversation here will likely never transcend the realm of pointlessness.


I have addressed them. The paper says what it says. Look back through your quotes and see how many times you assume what they are trying to say. I am providing you quotes from the paper while you sit there and assume.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 16, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> If the "small blips" in Fig. 14 were "contamination" within the thermite, then why does Jones consider his slide to be actual primer paint and not the same "thermite with primer paint contamination"?...



Have you bothered to watch _any_ of the videos you've posted as evidence of some of the wrongheaded conclusions you've been pushing in here? 

In Jones's own words from the video you posted (starting at 1:16:30): "_The behavior when we ignite this stuff [...] and when we treat it with paint solvent, these are entirely different behaviors between the primer paint and the red chips._" He goes on in some detail from there. Compositional analysis is only 1/3 of the picture. The primer paint goes limp in solvent, whereas the red-gray chips retain their hardness; and most importantly of all, the primer paint doesn't react like an incendiary when exposed to the right temperature range.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> Possibly?! You mean it wasn't a priority to determine if what he had was actual primer paint or contaminated thermite?! You've got to be kidding me.



Since the red-gray chips apparently didn't behave like paint chips in the solvent, and the nature of the MEK test was such that some level of surface contamination was to be expected, I imagine the Harrit group felt sufficiently comfortable in the knowledge that what they'd tested and reported on in that particular instance wasn't a paint chip.

From the paper:

"_The initial objective [of the MEK test] was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. *The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.* It was discovered in this process that a significant migration and segregation of aluminum had occurred in the red-chip material. This allowed us to assess
whether some of the aluminum was in elemental form._" (emphasis mine)

The independent confirmation of elemental aluminum in the red layer was  a nice unexpected perk. It's always good to have as many different affirmations as possible for X-hypothesis, after all; but since elemental Al would later be *proven* by implication in the DSC results, the veracity of the paper's chief conclusion doesn't stand or fall on the strengths/weaknesses of the solvent test.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> Which explanation? ...



That the nature of the acetone test didn't allow for the isolation of a clean surface.

Here's Harrit from the video Daws alluded to earlier as "meaningless minutia" (starting at 4:16):

"_Now, in the experiment where we had to put the chip into methyl ethyl ketone, *we could not break it, of course.* So, [...] it shows all the contamination from the rest of the building. [...] *This zinc-chromate could very well be primer paint sticking on the outside of the red-gray chips. The point is: when you break the chip, where you get a clean cut, there's no zinc-chromate.*_" (emphasis mine)



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...Can you point me to the part in the paper that shows it was contamination? Or are you "guessing" again?



As I've already posted, the paper states:

"_XEDS spectrum of red side before soaking in MEK. Notice the presence of Zn and Cr, which are sometimes seen in the red layers. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to surface contamination with wallboard material._"

Granted, this in itself doesn't prove that surface contamination was present, but when viewed in light of the XEDS analyses of clean-cut cross sections, it's a reasonable suggestion that's empirically supported by other results listed in the paper.



Capstone said:


> What was the gray layer Capstone? What if it was primer paint that was contaminated?



The gray layers were also examined via the XEDS's 'clean-cut' methodology, Smartass. 

From the paper:

"_The four spectra in Fig.(6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon._"

That's not a recipe for primer paint.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...You know what I find mysterious? The fact that people in Harrit's group later ADMITTED they had red primer paint chips yet decided to use tabulated resistivity results from an outside source instead of testing the damn primer paint chips they had in their midst. Why did they not try and ignite primer paint chips that they had from the dust samples instead of using OTHER primer paint samples. What a joke.



Before commenting on it, I'd like to see the source of that charge, because it seems pretty likely to me that such a confession on the part of anyone in Harrit's group would have been accompanied by an explanation.



Gamolon said:


> What happened to the confidence you exuded in the post below just a short while ago Capstone? [...] Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"?...



Oh, don't get me wrong! I have the utmost confidence in my capacities to defend Harrit's paper and to highlight the deficiencies of the arguments that have been brought against it (beyond the peer-reviewed arena, of course) over the years. The internet and a naturally analytical mind are a powerful twosome. Don't mistake my personal honesty as a sign of weakness, Gams.




			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...Now you're admitting here you're "not qualified", "not privy", and "not familiar"? Do these admissions somehow exonerate you from providing fully supported answers to my questions regarding Harrit's paper going forward? ...



Well, they were true before I admitted them in this thread, and they certainly hadn't prevented me from addressing/refuting any issue you'd raised up to that point. So, no worries, I'll continue to back up my guesses with quotes from the paper and/or statements made by members of the Harrit group outside of the paper (I've found a few of the videos you posted to be pretty helpful in that regard, BTW).



			
				gAMOLON said:
			
		

> ...The problem is it's all in the paper Capstone. You provided nothing but what you "think" the paper is saying and not "what" the paper is actually saying.



Bunk.

You're the one who's tried to impose an unreasonable restriction on the way a couple of cherry-picked phrases can be interpreted, despite my appeal to Harrit's explanations (outside of the paper) which fully justify my preferred interpretations of those phrases. Just because you claim to know what Harrit et al meant ... doesn't mean you actually know any such thing.



Gamolon said:


> ...My interpretation is directly from the paper. ...



So are mine. The difference is that I've appealed to Harrit's statements outside of the paper to support mine, while you've provided nothing more than your bull-headed insistence that you're right and I'm wrong (not a very compelling argument, BTW).



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...There is no other interpretation. I've shown you many instances where Harrit's paper refers to "THE chips". There is no indication of other types of red chips in the paper.



And I suggest, that in each and every one of those instances, "THE chips" to which he referred should be understood in the individual contexts in which that common phrase was used (I.E. "the chips" analyzed via the XEDS refer only to the chips so analyzed and reported on, ETC.). Unlike yours, there's really nothing controversial about my preferred  interpretation.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...I can show you ALL kinds of quotes from the paper that show that they think ALL the red chips they extracted from the dust pile were active thermite. ...



Only if we're to accept the narrow interpretations you've been trying (and failing) both to pin on the paper's writers and to force on the paper's readers.

Now, go on and list ALL of those quotes in order, so I can shoot down your narrow-minded takes one at a time.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...I have addressed them. The paper says what it says. Look back through your quotes and see how many times you assume what they are trying to say. I am providing you quotes from the paper while you sit there and assume.



It seems to me that you're the one assuming that your narrow interpretation applies irrespective of context throughout the paper. Since when does language work that way for any comprehensive composition, scientific or otherwise?!

Let's look at the abstract again (I've emphasized the areas you'd previously highlighted in red):

"_We have discovered *distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples* we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. ..._"

This has no bearing on the question as to whether or not all of the "distinctive red/gray chips" collected would be tested and reported on in the paper. To assume other wise would be just that - an assumption.

"*Examination of four of these samples*_, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. ..._"

Again, the language is ambiguous enough to account for any red/gray chips discovered during the examination of the dust samples but not further tested or more extensively reported on later in the paper.

"*These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. *..."

Here the phrase, "these red/gray chips", is obviously in reference to those r/g chips that were recovered from the four different samples and reported as having "marked similarities". It doesn't justify the _assumption_ that *every one of those chips* would be further tested and/or more extensively reported on later in the paper.

"_One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. *The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.*_"

There again, the phrase "these chips" should be taken in the context it was used, specifically following the generalized description of DSC testing results.

Next...


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem, I'll do just that. See below.

Abstract from the paper:


			
				Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> *We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples* we have studied of the dust produced by the
> destruction of the World Trade Center.


So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
> this paper. *These red/gray chips* show marked similarities in all four samples.


*These red/gray chips *referring to the "distinctive" red/gray chips mentioned previously. No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips yet.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> One sample was collected by a Manhattan
> resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
> The properties of *these chips* were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy


*these chips* still referring to the generic, one type of "distinctive" red/gray chips.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). *The red material* contains grains approximately
> 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.


*The red material* refers to the red/layer of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips. Still nothing mentioned about any other type of red/gray chip.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> Separation
> of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
> are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device *the chips* exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring


*the chips*, yet again, still refer to the generic, single type of "distinctive" red/gray chip they first mentioned. 


			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.


Interesting. The chips ignite FAR below the normal ignition of for conventional thermite, yet he classifies it as thermite.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> Numerous iron-rich
> spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of *these peculiar red/gray chips*.


these peculiar red/gray chips still refer to the generic "red/gray chips, At this point, you want us to believe that there are other types of red/gray chips.



			
				cont'd Harrit's abstract from his paper said:
			
		

> The red portion of *these
> chips* is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


*these chips* still referring to the "distinctive" chips they discovered.

So tell me Capstone, just reading the abstract so far and using the paper as your only basis to form an opinion, how does anyone reading Harrit's paper get any other impression other than any red/gray chip extracted from the four piles of dust using a magnet will be anything BUT active thermite?

You see, Harrit's paper has a major problem. It's the same problem I have been trying to point out to you. His paper clearly tries to make the point that all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet are thermtic material. So far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.

So now they go on to prove how they came to the conclusion that the red/layer of these chips is active thermitic material. My next post will be about that.


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

So now, anyone reading the abstract in Harrit's paper gets the idea that they found active thermitic material in the form of red/gray chips. As of yet, there is no indication of any other type of red/gray chip.

Just a thought. What if I am a scientist (or anyone for that matter) and I want to replicate his paper? Keep that in mind as we go forward.

So I have a pile of WTC dust and I want to replicate Harrit's findings. What is my first step? Extraction of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips from the dust? How does one do that? Well, it's in the paper!


			
				Harrit's paper said:
			
		

> *The
> red/gray chips* are attracted by a magnet, which facilitates
> collection and separation of *the chips* from the bulk of the
> dust. A small permanent magnet in its own plastic bag was
> ...


So according to Harrit's paper, *the chips* or *the red/gray chips*, are attracted to a magnet and can be extracted from the pile/s using said magnet. So now I have a question. Is your thinking that at this step of the paper, Harrit and his group unknowingly extracted various types of red/gray chips (active, dead, primer paint, etc.) to the magnet?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

So now, following the paper, I have extracted red/gray chips from my pile of WTC dust using a magnet. According to your logic, I, just like Harrit, UNKNOWINGLY attracted different kinds of red/gray chips with my magnet. Different chips such as active thermite, dead thermite, red primer paint, etc. I say UNKNOWINGLY because thus far, I have no indication that there are different types of "distinctive" red/gray chips, nor is there any steps thus far that explain HOW to separate the unwanted red/gray chips from the active thermtic red/gray chips. I only have the clarification within the abstract. So let's read a bit further in the paper.



			
				Harrit's paper said:
			
		

> *RESULTS
> 1. Characterization of the Red/Gray Chips
> Red/gray chips were found in all of the dust sample*s collected.
> An analysis of *the chips* was performed to assess the
> ...


So, ALL of the chips used in the study had a gray layer and a red layer and were attracted by a magnet. So now we have further proof of the chips used in the study. So I look at my pile of red/gray chips that I extracted with a magnet (which according to contains active, dead, red primer paint, etc.) and think I have the same pile of extracted chips that Harrit and his group tested.

With me so far?

Question. In Fig. (2), since they are supposedly publishing information on active thermtic chips ONLY, how did they determine at this point (*1. Charatcterization of the Red/Gray Chips*) in the paper that chips (a) thru (d) were active thermitic material?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No problem.

Below is a quote regarding what Mark Basile says about red/gray paint chips.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [8] Mark Basile: 9/11 Free Fall: Mark Basile and WTC dust. Radio talkshow, broadcast by No Lies Radio on December 27 2012.: 9 11 Free Fall Mark Basile and WTC dust



> *Mark Basile*
> 
> Mark Basile is a chemical engineer who first approached Steven Jones about the alleged thermitic nature of the red-gray chips in december 2007, and was in due course supplied with a sample of WTC from one of the sources (Janette MacKinlay) which he did some tests on. I commented some of his results elsewhere in my blog
> 
> ...



Another quote regarding the known presence of red/gray paint chips.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [7] Chris Mohr: A forum post. Posted at the JREF forum on January 10 2013. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16: WTC Dust Study Feb 29 2012 by Dr. James Millette - Page 30 - International Skeptics Forum


> *Kevin Ryan*
> 
> Prior to commissioning the James Millette study, Colorado-based journalist Chris Mohr was in conversation with Harrit's co-author Kevin Ryan. In those exchanges, Ryan acknowledged that there are paint chips among the red-gray chips, as Mohr relates on the JREF forum [7]:
> 
> ...



And another quote about different kinds of red/gray chips including primer paint.
Link: Oystein s 9 11 debates Januar 2013
Source: [6] Frank M. Legge: Reply to a question. Posted at amazon.org as a comment to a Customer Review on December 25 2012. Last retrieved: 2013/01/16: Amazon.com Alan S. Glassman pleromata s review of Where Did the Towers Go Evidence of Direc...


> *Frank Legge*
> 
> Frank Legge recently engaged in an online debate with Ronald Wieck and others in the comments section of an Amazon customer review [6]. Note that he incorrectly addressed "Ronald and Millette", it should have been "Ronald and Erich", as Millette didn't participate in that exchange. To make reading easier, I'll format the questions quoted from Ronald's previous post blue, Legge's own words purple:
> 
> ...


_

Now, here is proof that they never tested the KNOWN red/gray paint chips.

Here is a quote with the source from Harrit's paper regarding the resistivity tests. Why, if they had red/gray primer paint chips in their possession, did they just not test those? They used tabulated information from an external source.


			
				Harrit's paper said:
			
		


*7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?*
We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].
		
Click to expand...


Here is the source for the "tabulated" data mentioned above.
[31] Abu Ayana YM, El-Sawy SM, Salah SH. Zinc-ferrite pigment for corrosion protection. Anti-Corros Methods Mater 1997; 44(6): 381-8.
Available from: EmeraldInsight

How about this quote from Jones.
Link: Letter regarding red gray chip analyses 911Blogger.com



			We performed experiments soaking epoxy paint chips in MEK as well. As we reported in our paper, the red material swells but remains hard under forceps after soaking for many hours.  OTOH, the epoxy paint became very flimsy after soaking in the MEK for a similar length of time.  This is yet another test which distinguishes the red/gray chips from paint!
		
Click to expand...


So they definitely had red/gray paint chips according to the first three quotes, but didn't use them for testing in their own paper. Furthermore, in the last quote above from Jones, he clearly says that that the test "distinguishes THE RED GRAY CHIPS from PAINT. Nowhere does he say that this test distinguishes the active thermitic red/gray chips from red/gray paint chips._


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

Capstone said:


> I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.


Let's discuss your post above.

As posted previously, here is the quote from the paper that designates which samples are designated as samples 1 thru 4.


			
				Harrit's paper said:
			
		

> 2. Chip Size, Isolation, and Examination
> For clarification, the dust samples collected and sent to
> the authors by Ms. Janette MacKinlay will be sample 1; the
> sample collected by Mr. Frank Delassio, or the Delassio/
> ...



Furthermore, Fig (2) has this caption below it. This ties each dust sample 1 thru 4 to a particular chip labeled (a) thru (d). This makes chip (b) from the Delassio/Breidenback sample 2.


			
				Harrit's paper said:
			
		

> *Fig. (2)*. Photomicrographs of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 of the WTC dust involved in this study, shown in (a)-(d) respectively. The
> inset in (d) shows the chip edge on, which reveals the gray layer. The red/gray chips are mounted on an aluminum pedestal, using a carbon
> conductive tab, for viewing in the scanning electron microscope (SEM).



If you think the reason for the lack of published red/gray chip DSC results from the Delassio/Breidenbach dust sample is because the chip was dead/inactive like you convey in your quote above, then why in the hell did Harrit and his group continue to use chip (b) throughout the paper and post it's results? You have continually stated that this paper is about ACTIVE THERMITIC CHIPS only right Capstone?


----------



## Gamolon (Dec 17, 2014)

Capstone said:


> It seems to me that you're the one assuming that your narrow interpretation applies irrespective of context throughout the paper. Since when does language work that way for any comprehensive composition, scientific or otherwise?!
> 
> Let's look at the abstract again (I've emphasized the areas you'd previously highlighted in red):
> 
> ...


I'm not suggesting that they tested all the chips! That's the problem! They are using the results from SOME of the so-called favorable chip results to stereotype ALL the magnetically attracted red/gray chips as being active thermite. The fact that later people say there are different kinds of red/gray chips REFUTES Harrit's conclusion. That's why I am saying that any reference in the paper to "the chips", "these chips", "these red/gray", etc., can ONLY be traced back to meaning the magnetically red/gray chips extracted from each dust pile. There is no definition or further separation criteria after the magnet attraction criteria to separate active thermitic chips from other types of red/gray chips.

So when Harrit's paper concludes that...


> Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
> layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
> dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
> nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
> explosive material.


...the only traceable, definitive definition of what "the red/gray chips" are is the red/gray chips extracted by a magnet. That means all of the chips they separated out. PERIOD. There is nothing else. The fact that you have to use supplemental videos and websites to prove that which should be in the paper in the first place is proof positive that the paper is garbage.


----------



## Capstone (Dec 18, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips. ...



Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.

We know how many r/g chips were utilized in the results _reported_ by the Harrit group. That doesn't justify any assumptions as to whether or not and/or how many other magnetic r/g chips were more closely examined, tested, and reported on (or not), and it certainly doesn't warrant any assumptions by the paper's readers as to the further nature of such chips beyond their cursory distinctive appearances and the fact that they were attracted to the magnet during collection.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...These red/gray chips referring to the "distinctive" red/gray chips mentioned previously. No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips yet.



Still no mention of how many were recovered either...



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...these chips still referring to the generic, one type of "distinctive" red/gray chips.



...and still referring to an unknown quantity, since we only know of how many r/g chips were used in the reported results from the XEDS analyses. How many others were so analyzed (or not) but not reported on more extensively? That remains an open question, to which, I suggest, no answer should be assumed by the paper's readers, at least not prior to external validation of such assumptions.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> The red material refers to the red/layer of the "disctinctive" red/gray chips. Still nothing mentioned about any other type of red/gray chip.



...still no mention of how many distinctive red material-bearing chips were recovered and subjected (or not) to further examination, testing, and reporting. Broken record, I know.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...the chips, yet again, still refer to the generic, single type of "distinctive" red/gray chip they first mentioned. ...



Not quite. Here the phrase, "the chips", refers only to the distinctive r/g chips that, "_when ignited_ in a DSC device", exhibited large but narrow exotherms, ETC.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> Interesting. The chips ignite FAR below the normal ignition of for conventional thermite, yet he classifies it as thermite.



Yes, the chips _that ignited_ did so at a lower temperature than that of _conventional_ thermitic material. So? Well, obviously, especially in light of some of the paper's other observations (such as the relatively low atomic weight of the red layer, as well as its compositional uniformity), this thermitic material is *un*conventional (I.E. not available on the open market to private construction companies). 



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...these peculiar red/gray chips still refer to the generic "red/gray chips, At this point, you want us to believe that there are other types of red/gray chips.



Again, not quite. Clearly, the phrase, "_following the ignition_ of these peculiar red/gray chips", refers only to the r/g chips that had  ignited and left numerous iron-rich spheres in the resulting residue.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...these chips still referring to the "distinctive" chips they discovered.



That depends on what you mean by "the", Gams. If you're talking about _the_ chips they heat-tested and reported on, then yeah, they were definititely _among_ the unknown quanity of "distinctive red/gray chips" recovered from the samples.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...So tell me Capstone, just reading the abstract so far and using the paper as your only basis to form an opinion, how does anyone reading Harrit's paper get any other impression other than any red/gray chip extracted from the four piles of dust using a magnet will be anything BUT active thermite?



By way of erroneous assumption based mainly on a number of wrongly interpreted words? 



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...You see, Harrit's paper has a major problem. It's the same problem I have been trying to point out to you. His paper clearly tries to make the point that all red/gray chips attracted to a magnet are thermtic material. So far, I see no reason to believe otherwise.



Wrong. His paper lays out the repeatable observational and testing methodologies concisely and reports the results that support its chief  conclusion. Thermitic material was found by identifying the common compositions of specific r/g chips with various types of spectroscopy (including one type that eliminated surface ccontamination from the equation), and the "activity" of the red material on specific chips was proven in the DSC device. Your assumption that "all red/gray chips attracted to [a] magnet are thermitic material" (much less _active_ thermitic material) is apparently based on the fact that the Harrit group didn't state otherwise in the paper. In logicians' circles that's known as an _Appeal to Silence_, a *glaring* fallacy.

Listen, Gams, I've a lot on my plate outside of internet activity at the moment, so it could be a day or three before I post my responses to your other replies. Rest assured, though, barring divine or terrestrial intervention, they're coming.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 18, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Gamolon said:
> 
> 
> > So they discovered distinctive red/gray chips in the four piles of WTC dust. Fantastic. Later, we'll discuss the characteristics that make these particular chips "distinctive". No mention of different kinds of red/gray chips. Just generic "distinctive" red/gray chips. ...
> ...



I just wanna know WTF you are smokin' and where I can get some?
Really dude ... try the chocolate chip cookies.


----------



## daws101 (Dec 18, 2014)

SAYIT said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > Gamolon said:
> ...


it's gotta be crack it's the only thing I know of that makes you yammer non sense for days at a time...


----------



## Capstone (Dec 18, 2014)

Gamolon said:


> So now, anyone reading the abstract in Harrit's paper gets the idea that they found active thermitic material in the form of red/gray chips. As of yet, there is no indication of any other type of red/gray chip.



If we're allowed to consider subsequent statements by Harrit and other members of the group, that's because they apparently didn't report on any such chips in the paper (which seems perfectly reasonable in light of its title).



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...So now I have a question. Is your thinking that at this step of the paper, Harrit and his group unknowingly extracted various types of red/gray chips (active, dead, primer paint, etc.) to the magnet?



I believe so, yes, but that belief isn't based solely on what's written in the paper; it's also based on the authors' subsequent statements outside of the paper.



Gamolon said:


> ...Question. In Fig. (2), since they are supposedly publishing information on active thermtic chips ONLY, how did they determine at this point (1. Charatcterization of the Red/Gray Chips) in the paper that chips (a) thru (d) were active thermitic material?



I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can you please quote directly from the paper (or the abstract) where any of the r/g chips are characterized as "active" *before* their ignition in the DSC device? Thanks in advance.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> Below is a quote regarding what Mark Basile says about red/gray paint chips. <snip> .....



So, in support of your statement that members of Harrit's group admitted to using fresh paint chips for resistivity testing instead of badly degraded ones from the samples, you've given me a non-member's speculation about a member (Mark Basile about Steven Jones), a hearsay account from a known OCT apologist (Chris Mohr about Kevin Ryan), and (Hooray! Hooray!) the testimonies of a couple of members that non-thermitic r/g (but visually different) paint chips had been extracted from the dust, and last but not least, some relevant quotes from the paper itself; *...and I don't doubt a bit of it!* In fact, these accounts shore up what I've been saying all along, namely that it's likely a number of peripherally relevant things were found but not reported in the paper.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> So they definitely had red/gray paint chips according to the first three quotes, but didn't use them for testing in their own paper. Furthermore, in the last quote above from Jones, he clearly says that that the test "distinguishes THE RED GRAY CHIPS from PAINT. Nowhere does he say that this test distinguishes the active thermitic red/gray chips from red/gray paint chips.



Okay, so they used fresh paint chips (which almost certainly would have been stronger/more resistent than any paint chips pulled from the dust samples, BTW). It's a non-issue that OCT apologists nonetheless have to fixate on because they have so little else.

It should also be said: according to Mohr's hearsay account, Kevin Ryan stated that the r/g paint chips were visually different from the thermitic ones, which would justify the paper's characterization of the thermitic ones as "distinctive red/gray chips" with "marked similarities" apparently not exhibited by the r/g paint chips.



Gamolon said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen plenty of speculation and innuendo as to why the DSC results from the four chips reported in the paper came from only 3 of the 4 dust samples, but my guess is that the results from the Delassio/Breidenbach sample were indicative of that particular chip's inactivity.
> ...



Wrong, Gamolon. I've been consistent in my stated beliefs throughout our discussion, most notably in that all tests and analyses prior to heat testing confirm only the thermitic nature of the "distinve r/g chips"  and that activity/inactivity can only be determined by the DSC device. That one of the samples may not have rendered an _active_ thermitic chip wouldn't change the fact, that according to various types of spectroscopy, it _did_ render thermitic ones.

And as pointed out a bit later in the very same post you excerpted...



			
				Capstone said:
			
		

> . . .Having said that, there's really no need for me to justify the Harrit group's decisions as to what they reported and what they may have withheld, because what they reported suffienctly proves the premise of their paper, namely that active thermitic material was found in the WTC dust, *yes, even if only 3 of the 4 samples yielded active thermitic chips for testing in the DSC device.* ...[emphasis added]



...it has no bearing on the paper's chief conclusion. _Active_ thermitic material could have been found in only 1 of the samples and the paper's title would still have been accurate.

More to come...


----------



## Capstone (Dec 19, 2014)

Gamolon said:
			
		

> I'm not suggesting that they tested all the chips! That's the problem! They are using the results from SOME of the so-called favorable chip results to stereotype ALL the magnetically attracted red/gray chips as being active thermite. ...



That "problem" is _your_ problem, not theirs, since your conclusion in that regard is nothing more than a faulty assumption based on some wrongly interpreted phrases and your desperate refusal to allow the authors' subsequent statements to clarify the meanings of those phrases. 



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...The fact that later people say there are different kinds of red/gray chips REFUTES Harrit's conclusion. ...



No, it refutes _your_ conclusion about a handful of cherry-picked phrases, the wrongheaded conclusion you've been trying (but failing) to force down our throats.

What those later statements actually do is support the interpretation I've offered as an alternative to your fallacious one.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...That's why I am saying that any reference in the paper to "the chips", "these chips", "these red/gray", etc., can ONLY be traced back to meaning the magnetically red/gray chips extracted from each dust pile. ...



I don't disagree with that statement, Gams. What I take issue with are your consistent attempts to misrepresent what the paper states in various instances, including the premature application of "active" and the dishonest(?) implication that the phrases, "distinctive res/gray chips" with "marked similarities", don't at least allude to the presence/absence of sufficient aspects to differentiate between r/g paint chips and r/g thermitic ones, when you're clearly familiar with subsequent statements by Harrit, Jones, Ryan, and Legge that indicate otherwise.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> There is no definition or further separation criteria after the magnet attraction criteria to separate active thermitic chips from other types of red/gray chips.



You mean besides the "marked similarities" that apparently distinguished the "_distinctive_ red/gray chips" from everything else in the dust, *including* the r/g paint chips?

If so, I suggest that what's needed is further clarification as to which of those "marked similarities" negated the r/g paint chips as candidates for further testing as possible thermitic material, NOT an unwarranted assumption that fits your preconceived conclusion.



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> So when Harrit's paper concludes that...[the paper's chief conclusion]...the only traceable, definitive definition of what "the red/gray chips" are is the red/gray chips extracted by a magnet. That means all of the chips they separated out. PERIOD. ...



Yeah, including the chips they separated from the visually different r/g paint chips (which apparently didn't share certain "marked similarities" observed on/within the thermitic ones). *Obviously* some form of spectroscopy would have been needed to eliminate the r/g paint chips, assuming only that they were themselves attracted by the magnet during collection (and not just hitchhikers on other magnetically-atttracted materials in the dust). 



			
				Gamolon said:
			
		

> ...The fact that you have to use supplemental videos and websites to prove that which should be in the paper in the first place is proof positive that the paper is garbage.



The fact that you have to ignore so much of the supplemental evidence _you've_ provided to support your fallacious conclusion WRT Harrit's paper is proof positive that your conclusion is garbage.

According to Neils Harrit (again from one of the videos you posted earlier), I'm paraphrasing here, one of the reasons they selected Bentham as their peer-review medium was that the paper was too lengthy for other unnamed journals. In the interest of brevity, the most likely candidates for non-inclusion in the finished product would have been those that were only peripherally relevant to the paper's chief conclusion. In other words, the fact that Harrit et al didn't include explicit documentation of every speck of debris they eliminated from the pool of subjects for further testing is entirely understandable and perfectly in line with common practice in the peer review arena.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but that's an arena Harrit's detractors have yet to enter, isn't it? Curious, that.


----------



## Skylar (Dec 22, 2014)

DGS49 said:


> There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> 
> In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.
> 
> ...



Your account for what you're 'expected to believe' is inaccurate. You may want to acquaint yourself with the official explanation for WTC 7 before discounting its collapse without 'explosives'.



> But that is simply not believable, looking at the video.  This was a planned implosion.



The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control. 

The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.

No bombs needed. 

I'd put more weight on the eye witness accounts of experts in the FDNY who where there and observed the fire for hours. As, I think, any rational person would.


----------



## SAYIT (Dec 22, 2014)

Skylar said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> ...



Regrettably there's never been a whole lotta rationality within the 9/11 CT Movement, nor has there been much in the way of truth:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - former 9/11 "Truther" Charlie Veitch


----------



## Capstone (Dec 29, 2014)

Skylar said:


> The Fire Department of New York had a very different account. They cited the structural damage and most significantly, the fires that raged for most of the day. The FDNY noted the massive structural damage caused by falling pieces of the WTC and put a transit on WTC 7. Over several hours they measured the building's buckling, bulging and leaning as it burned out of control.
> 
> The FDNY ancticipated the collapse due to fire and structural damage by hours. They were accurate to within about 30 minutes of the collapse.
> 
> ...



From Graeme MacQueen's targeted analysis of the FDNY oral histories, in which the testimonies of 60 firefighters indicated forewarnings of building 7's "collapse" (in some cases, 4 to 6 hours in advance):

".._.is it true that the collapse warnings were mainly the result of a rational conclusion based on observation and training? No. As far as we can tell, no rational conclusion based on direct perception was made in the vast majority of cases. ..."_
_
"...As will be clear by now, my research refutes the claim that the FDNY witnesses as a body perceived with their own eyes that Seven was severely damaged and on that basis concluded that it was at risk of total collapse. My research shows that the great majority of witnesses *accepted* that Seven was going to collapse because they were *told* that it was going to collapse. ..." _(bold emphasis mine)

Only 7 of the 60 eyewitnesses relayed that the forewarnings were corroborated by their own observations, and while in positions of authority, this handful was likely influenced by sources outside of the FDNY and the unprecedented events of the day that preceded the "collapse" of building 7.

Again from MacQueen's analysis:

_"...There is another possibility that does not require anyone in the FDNY to have been 'in the know.' I refer to one of the options Mackey apparently regards as outlandish:

'''someone ‘in the know’ tricked a high-ranking member of the FDNY into thinking that it would collapse, and:
e.
This duped individual convinced many more firefighters that it would collapse;
f.
Those so informed believed it would collapse'''.
_
_I have seen no direct evidence in the FDNY oral histories to support this hypothesis. But it is certainly not irrational to include it in our repertoire as a possibility and to explore it further. We have, as a comparison case, the important warning relating to the Twin Towers, made shortly before the collapse of the South Tower. I believe it is worth reminding readers of this warning so I will quote FDNY Chief Peruggia’s account at length. [13]_

_“'I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse. I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed __immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located...”'_

_Q. ''“They felt that just the one building or both of them?”''_

_A. ''“The information we got at that time was that they felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind. I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way they were designed. They went through all of this architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my knowledge. It was hit by an airplane. That's okay. It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.”''_

_When Zarrillo carried Peruggia’s startling news of imminent collapse to Chief Ganci, Ganci’s response was, '“who the fuck told you that?”' [14] Ganci had bet the lives of his firefighters on the stability of the Towers._

_In fact, the lives of hundreds of firefighters had been wagered on the experience of fire chiefs who never suspected collapse. Ganci had almost certainly been told, like Peruggia and others in the FDNY (see Appendix E), that planes could not cause the Towers to collapse. Ganci is dead—he died in the collapse of the North Tower—but his question remains a good one: Who told you that?_

_In my view, all three building collapses were peculiar in the extreme, and we have a perfect right to ask who determined that they were going to collapse and on what basis. We need not apologize for asking whether there might have been an “engineer type person” who told crucial members of the FDNY that Seven’s stability was compromised, after which this warning was passed on and largely accepted by the rank and file. (Note Goldbach’s statement in Appendix C that “they said it suffered some form of structural damage”—do we know who “they” refers to?) Exploring this possibility further remains an important task."_

It should go without saying, that the type of "imminent collapse" referred to by Chief Peruggia was not of the type that occurred on that day. His testimony there was in reference to the warning he received by largely unnamed sources _prior_ to any of the previously unprecedented '_global_ collapses' that would later take place.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 12, 2015)

[QUOTE="Capstone, post: 10372630, member: 35495"Also no mention of how many of those distinctive r/g chips were recovered from the four samples, nor does the abstract specify how many would be more extensively analyzed, tested, and reported on later in the paper. This is crucial information for anyone who seeks to avoid unwarranted assumptions.[/quote]

Capstone,

I am going to reiterate my point about Harrit's paper being garbage one more time.

The fact of the matter is that Harrit's paper concludes that ALL red/gray chips extracted from a pile of WTC dust with a magnet will be active thermitic material. 

Based on just Harrit's paper only, show me why I (or anyone else) reading that paper would think that any red/gray, magnetically attracted would be anything OTHER THAN an active thermitic material. Obviously you are finding excerpts in the paper that lead you to believe that there were magnetically attracted, red/gray chips OTHER THAN an active thermtic material.

So show me.


----------



## n0spam4me (Jan 12, 2015)

People can get all wound up in discussions in minute detail, however for my $0.02 worth here, it is sufficient to note that the official version includes bits such as the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 allegedly because of aircraft crashes & fires ... Ya, right..... and the video of the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the south tower is a JOKE, the scene is more like B movie special effects & the Pentagon crash & the Shanksville crash .... give me a break! 
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...... 

FALSE FLAG ATTACK!


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> People can get all wound up in discussions in minute detail, however for my $0.02 worth here, it is sufficient to note that the official version includes bits such as the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 allegedly because of aircraft crashes & fires ... Ya, right..... and the video of the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the south tower is a JOKE, the scene is more like B movie special effects & the Pentagon crash & the Shanksville crash .... give me a break!
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck......
> 
> FALSE FLAG ATTACK!


 
Your 2 cents worth isn't worth half that and even a casual glance at the "Truther" Movement's alternative scenarios reveals a total wasteland of desperate half-wits all selling their lunacy on DVDs and T-shirts.
The Movement is DEAD, Princess ... get over it and get a real life.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## daws101 (Jan 12, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> People can get all wound up in discussions in minute detail, however for my $0.02 worth here, it is sufficient to note that the official version includes bits such as the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 allegedly because of aircraft crashes & fires ... Ya, right..... and the video of the alleged "FLT175" crashing into the south tower is a JOKE, the scene is more like B movie special effects & the Pentagon crash & the Shanksville crash .... give me a break!
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck......
> 
> FALSE FLAG ATTACK!


or a goose.

*Anatidae*



en.wikipedia.org

The Anatidae are the biological family of birds that includes ducks, geese and swans. The family has a cosmopolitan distribution, occurring on all the world's continents except Antarctica and on most of the world's islands and island groups. These are birds that are adapted through evolution for swimming, floating on the water surface, and in some cases diving in at least shallow water. The family contains around 146 species in 40 genera. They are generally herbivorous, and are monogamous breeders. A number of species undertake annual migrations. A few species have been domesticated for agriculture, and many others are hunted for food and recreation. Five species have become extinct since 1600, and many more are threatened with extinction.
The Anatidae are the biological family of birds that includes ducks, geese and swans. The family has a cosmopolitan distribution, occurring on all the world's continents except Antarctica and on most of the world's islands and island groups. Thes…
en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license

*Scientific name:* Anatidae
*Biological classification:* Family
*Consists of:* Duck · Anatinae · Anserinae · Diving duck · Seaduck · Tadorninae · Whistling duck · Oxyurinae · Plectropterinae
· Stictonettinae · Thalassorninae


----------



## deep_space (Jan 15, 2015)

>



Has anyone here watched this movie?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 23, 2015)

deep_space said:


> >
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone here watched this movie?


yes, and it's just that,  a movie,  in the drama, action, mystery genre .
it is not a factual documentary by any standard.


----------



## deep_space (Jan 23, 2015)

So, the movie was not at all thought provoking?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> So, the movie was not at all thought provoking?


yes, it was it proved what I already knew ....the brain dead are easily led...


----------



## deep_space (Jan 26, 2015)

RE: "Brain dead"  you have YOUR opinion obviously.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> RE: "Brain dead"  you have YOUR opinion obviously.


just stating fact...


----------



## deep_space (Jan 26, 2015)

I guess some people can't differentiate between OPINION and FACT ...... oops!


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> I guess some people can't differentiate between OPINION and FACT ...... oops!


it's nice that you admit to having a problem..


----------



## deep_space (Jan 26, 2015)

This discussion has devolved into a non-discussion and that is really NOT my doing.


----------



## Capstone (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> RE: "Brain dead"  you have YOUR opinion obviously.



I think it may go deeper than just an _opinion_...


----------



## deep_space (Jan 26, 2015)

Maybe I have been asking too much of "civilization"  because I thought behavior such as described in the cartoon, was the domain of 9year-olds.....


----------



## Capstone (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> Maybe I have been asking too much of "civilization"  because I thought behavior such as described in the cartoon, was the domain of 9year-olds.....



No, you haven't been asking too much; it's just that Daws happens to be at the emotional level of an average 9 year-old.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

deep_space said:


> This discussion has devolved into a non-discussion and that is really NOT my doing.


false your premise was a nonstarter, being such  there is no other way this "discussion" could end.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

Capstone said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > RE: "Brain dead"  you have YOUR opinion obviously.
> ...


that's you guys in a nut shell.
I've never denied any fact regarding 911


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

Capstone said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe I have been asking too much of "civilization"  because I thought behavior such as described in the cartoon, was the domain of 9year-olds.....
> ...


loser says what?


----------



## Capstone (Jan 26, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...



Q.E.D.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 26, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Capstone said:
> ...


not even close...
*Q.E.D.*

Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Ancient Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai, meaning "which had to be proven". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation—and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration. The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.
faux intellectualism is a hallmark of the conspiracy obsessed....


----------



## Capstone (Jan 26, 2015)

daws101 said:


> not even close... <snip>...


Not to cast aspersions on your source there (Wikipedia, wasn't it?), but from The Oxford English Dictionary*:



> [...]*NOUN*
> Used to convey that a fact or situation demonstrates the truth of one’s theory or claim, especially to mark the conclusion of a formal proof. ...



Accordingly, the _fact_ that your childish "loser says what?" post "demonstrate[d] the truth of [my] claim" that you're at the emotional level of the average 9 year-old...fully justified my use of the phrase.



daws101 said:


> ...*faux intellectualism* is a hallmark of the conspiracy obsessed....



And there you go projecting again. 

*quod erat demonstrandum definition of quod erat demonstrandum in Oxford dictionary American English US


----------



## daws101 (Jan 27, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > not even close... <snip>...
> ...


funny, if you were as emotionally mature as you play at, this answer would be 
*unnecessary*

*making this statement true :"]...faux intellectualism is a hallmark of the conspiracy obsessed.*


----------



## Capstone (Jan 28, 2015)

What made my most recent forgoing reply to you unnecessary was the self-evident way in which you engaged in the very thing you accused me of doing, soaking _yourself_ with the bucketful of faux intellectuality you tried to throw my way (I'm talking about your appeal to the stunted definition you apparently thought would make you look smart... ), and thereby _projected_ your own behavior onto me for the likely subconscious purposes of _displacement_    and _reaction formation_, just like the brain-dead character in the cartoon I posted earlier. Of course, I don't only act out of necessity, Daws; sometimes it's fun to engage half-wits like you because your actions on this board have so beautifully demonstrated just how richly you deserve the ridicule.


----------



## daws101 (Jan 28, 2015)

Capstone said:


> What made my most recent forgoing reply to you unnecessary was the self-evident way in which you engaged in the very thing you accused me of doing, soaking _yourself_ with the bucketful of faux intellectuality you tried to throw my way (I'm talking about your appeal to the stunted definition you apparently thought would make you look smart... ), and thereby _projected_ your own behavior onto me for the likely subconscious purposes of _displacement_    and _reaction formation_, just like the brain-dead character in the cartoon I posted earlier. Of course, I don't only act out of necessity, Daws; sometimes it's fun to engage half-wits like you because your actions on this board have so beautifully demonstrated just how richly you deserve the ridicule.


right... funny, if you were as emotionally mature as you play at, this answer would be 
*unnecessary*


----------



## deep_space (Jan 28, 2015)

can we all just get along?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 29, 2015)

deep_space said:


> can we all just get along?


where's the fun in that?


----------



## deep_space (Jan 29, 2015)

daws101 said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > can we all just get along?
> ...



so you have fun at not getting along?


----------



## daws101 (Jan 30, 2015)

deep_space said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > deep_space said:
> ...


not getting along with  the gullible and ignorant is my forte..


----------



## deep_space (Jan 31, 2015)

> not getting along with the gullible and ignorant is my forte..



This constitutes arbitrary judgement and has no moral foundation, can we please stick to the actual subject and that is the conspiracy to commit fraud in the case of the 9/11 attack.?


----------



## SAYIT (Jan 31, 2015)

deep_space said:


> > not getting along with the gullible and ignorant is my forte..
> 
> 
> 
> This constitutes arbitrary judgement and has no moral foundation, can we please stick to the actual subject and that is the conspiracy to commit fraud in the case of the 9/11 attack.?


 
Powerful insurers with deep investigative pockets who were on the hook for BILLIONS in claims tried mightily to find proof of living conspirators (like some gov't officials) that could get them off the hook. They would love any real proof you may have which would give them a case for recovery of the big bucks they paid out and I'm certain they would pay handsomely for it. Hell ... just the book and speaking tour you most certainly would land would make you a wealthy rock star. Get busy, Sucker.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 2, 2015)

deep_space said:


> > not getting along with the gullible and ignorant is my forte..
> 
> 
> 
> This constitutes arbitrary judgement and has no moral foundation, can we please stick to the actual subject and that is the conspiracy to commit fraud in the case of the 9/11 attack.?


sure we could if that had actually happened, since there is no evidence for it ...no.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2015)

daws101 said:


> deep_space said:
> 
> 
> > > not getting along with the gullible and ignorant is my forte..
> ...


 
It's is profoundly ironic that a 9/11 "Truther" would even consider mentioning fraud:

"This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, 'mutha fuckin bitch ass money.' Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it. That, my friends, makes me sick to my fuckin stomach." - Mike Metzger, co-founder of 9/11 Truth UAlbany

Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 2, 2015)

a few charlatans who profit off of the "truth movement" is somehow cited as proof that the quest for TRUTH really isn't and it is at least alleged that there are no real truth seekers, only crooks & their victims? 

examine closely the facts of the whole alleged hijacked airliners fiasco + the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7 ....  what do you see?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 2, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> a few charlatans who profit off of the "truth movement" is somehow cited as proof that the quest for TRUTH really isn't and it is at least alleged that there are no real truth seekers, only crooks & their victims?
> 
> examine closely the facts of the whole alleged hijacked airliners fiasco + the untimely demise of WTC1,2 & 7 ....  what do you see?



Yanno ... it takes a certain kind of hubris to assume that anyone who does not agree with you is somehow ignorant of the facts and as repeatedly stated, the NIST findings are not perfect but such is the nature of human endeavors. When the alternatives proffered by the "Truther" Movement are viewed with the same skepticism you reserve _strictly_ for the official findings, those alternatives appear not just absurd but downright silly. Case in point: the "alleged hijacked airliners" theory you so desperately cling to which has even your fellow 9/11 CT loons rolling their eyes.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 3, 2015)

> viewed with the same skepticism you reserve _strictly_ for the official findings,



May I suggest that the skepticism for the truther points be applied to the work of the NIST and you would see similar results in the dismantling of the official story.  Fact is that events such as the airliner crashes & non-accounting for wreckage + the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 = an engineered event, speculation about WHO done it and whatever else, doesn't negate the fact that the events as observed, constitute proof of an engineered event.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 3, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > viewed with the same skepticism you reserve _strictly_ for the official findings,
> 
> 
> 
> May I suggest that the skepticism for the truther points be applied to the work of the NIST and you would see similar results in the dismantling of the official story.  Fact is that events such as the airliner crashes & non-accounting for wreckage + the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 = an engineered event, speculation about WHO done it and whatever else, doesn't negate the fact that the events as observed, constitute proof of an engineered event.


false!
bias observation  by parties with a vested interest in the conspiracy myth is not by any standard, proof.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 4, 2015)

Can anyone here simply for a moment totally ignore anything from Alex Jones or anybody else who seems to have something to sell, and just examine the events of 9/11/2001 as seen in the actual record compiled by the "news media".

You will note the crash of "FLT11" as it penetrates completely into the skyscraper not dropping any bit of itself outside the building, and also "FLT175" disappears completely into the skyscraper never to be seen again. and also "FLT77" also disappears into the PENTAGON, and then "FLT93" disappears into the ground ..... ( there is a pattern here )

First the South tower, and then the North tower and then WTC7 are completely destroyed, by what, "office fires"?

Examine carefully what you have, you do NOT have to pay any attention at all to anybody who is hawking their wares in the marketplace, there is plenty to be seen in the raw footage of the day.

Therefore the complaint about the hucksters & charlatans in the business, is totally irrelevant because one can simply ignore them and continue on with research about the events of the false flag attack that was 9/11/2001.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Can anyone here simply for a moment totally ignore anything from Alex Jones or anybody else who seems to have something to sell, and just examine the events of 9/11/2001 as seen in the actual record compiled by the "news media".
> 
> You will note the crash of "FLT11" as it penetrates completely into the skyscraper not dropping any bit of itself outside the building, and also "FLT175" disappears completely into the skyscraper never to be seen again. and also "FLT77" also disappears into the PENTAGON, and then "FLT93" disappears into the ground ..... ( there is a pattern here )
> 
> ...


you are an expert at ignoring ...reality that is...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 5, 2015)

does anyone take issue with the description that I posted in #577 ?
Please do address the specific point that you object to.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 5, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> does anyone take issue with the description that I posted in #577 ?
> Please do address the specific point that you object to.


all of it...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 7, 2015)

> all of it...



Standard device to avoid having to define exactly what you object to.
The official explanation of 9/11 is an insult to human intelligence!


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 7, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > all of it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
The alternate universe promoted by your "Truther" Movement proves you have none to be insulted.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 7, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > > all of it...
> ...



So rather than supply some bit of supporting evidence for your case, that is the 19 suicidal hijackers argument, you choose to post insult.

Thank U very much.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 7, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> So rather than supply some bit of supporting evidence for your case, that is the 19 suicidal hijackers argument, you choose to post insult.
> 
> Thank U very much.



I, like so many here, have had YEARS of trying to reason with loony 9/11 "Truthers." You demand all manner of proof (which you then ignore) while providing none for your silly CTs. If you were a child I might have more patience (although YEARS seems like enough). Now you get only the ridicule a pig-headed adult deserves. You're welcome.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 8, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > So rather than supply some bit of supporting evidence for your case, that is the 19 suicidal hijackers argument, you choose to post insult.
> ...



What we have here is a horrendous disaster, be it truly a terrorist attack carried out by radical Arabs, or whatever really happened. Bottom line, are people paying attention to what is happening here, if I where to go out with clip-board in hand and ask people on the street if they supported the 19 radical Arabs explanation, or? and most people would say they support the official story, and some would choose to call me rude names for even bringing up the subject and some would walk away pretending to have not heard me at all.

9/11 is a HUGE issue and it is seriously under documented.
Do people actually believe that the quantity of alleged aircraft wreckage extracted from each of the 4 crash sites, constitutes sufficient evidence to prove that an airliner did indeed crash at that location and indeed the aircraft was one of "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93"?

Do people actually BELIEVE that "FLT11" & "FLT175" could have not only penetrated completely into the skyscraper, but that a jet engine from "FLT175" could have had sufficient inertia to fly for blocks and land on Murray St?  and the ONLY thing offered up so far - OH but the airliner was going SOOOO fast ......

The mainstream media was first to assert that 19 radicals hijacked airliners and used said airliners as weapons, did they properly support this assertion?  I for one, am VERY skeptical.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> > all of it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


false! since all of it is based on a false assumption then saying all of it,  is  precise and exact ..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” 
― Narcotics Anonymous, _Narcotics Anonymous _


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 8, 2015)

The facts are clear here,
the complete destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
including the 2.25 sec of free-fall acceleration by WTC7,
the also completely illogical insistence on "FLT175" being flown at outrageous speed & penetrating completely into the WTC tower.
In addition to the same behavior by "FLT11".....  

The fact that some people will call it wrong from the start and not even entertain discussion of the issue, speaks volumes.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> The facts are clear here,
> the complete destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
> including the 2.25 sec of free-fall acceleration by WTC7,
> the also completely illogical insistence on "FLT175" being flown at outrageous speed & penetrating completely into the WTC tower.
> ...


 another false conclusion based on a deeply biased and flawed POV..AND NOTHING ELSE.
THE ISSUE AS BE DISCUSSED AD NAUSEAM ...
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam is a Latin term for a discussion that has continued so long that it has continued "to nausea". For example, the sentence "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam" signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 8, 2015)

so if you are truly tired of it, don't post, allow somebody else to get into the discussion.  The problem here is that some people seek to negate evidence of anything that challenges the 19 radical hijackers story.

Please can we have some real discussion of the evidence, or will this thread degenerate into insults & B.S.?


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



SPAMMY! STOP! Your obsession with 9/11 now borders on insanity. It is over 13 years since we were attacked and we know what we know. Yes, it's incomplete and yes, not all your questions will ever be answered but unless someone comes up with some startling new info - and in 13+ years that just hasn't happened - there is no reason for rational people to reopen that wound. Do like so many "Truthers" have already done ... GIVE IT UP.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> so if you are truly tired of it, don't post, allow somebody else to get into the discussion.  The problem here is that some people seek to negate evidence of anything that challenges the 19 radical hijackers story.
> 
> Please can we have some real discussion of the evidence, or will this thread degenerate into insults & B.S.?


 
Ridiculous. When your pseudoscience was challenged by Gamelon you vanished like a fart in the wind ... TWICE ... and remained gone for weeks at a time. It is clear you are not here to argue real facts but rather to spew your silly CT du jour, ad nauseam. As such you are worthy only of the disdain, disrespect and ridicule you receive here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 8, 2015)

DGS49 said:


> There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> 
> In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.
> 
> ...



speaking of JFK,amazingly you got people at this site and other places as well who STILL think oswald did it amazingly.

whats really funny though is that even the government concluded in the 70's in the HSCA investigation that there was a second shooter involved,yet despite that,the government and the media to this day,STILL say oswald was the lone assassin.

despite the fact that 80% of americans no longer believe the warren commission report.

sheesh,no wonder people don't trust our government to tell the truth.

the bush dupes here and around the country obviously dont remember what they were taught in junior high school science classes cause if they did,they would know the laws of physics were violated with the collapse of the towers.

that one of many similarities between 9/11 and the jfk assassination is in both instances,the laws of physics were violated.

those people who accept the 9/11 commission report and the warren report,they need to look in the mirror when calling people who say the CIA was behind it,tin foli hatters.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 8, 2015)

to no surprise at all,the CIA has one of their agents,agent sayit/aka sock dawgshit here to fart immediately after my post sending him here to troll the thread.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 8, 2015)

I see a VERY strange phenomenon here, people who would ordinarily be very logical, hang on to the story about hijacked airliners being used as weapons, when in fact the evidence for said assumption is so VERY thin.

and its like, TABOO to question the official story?  what?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 8, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> so if you are truly tired of it, don't post, allow somebody else to get into the discussion.  The problem here is that some people seek to negate evidence of anything that challenges the 19 radical hijackers story.
> 
> Please can we have some real discussion of the evidence, or will this thread degenerate into insults & B.S.?





n0spam4me said:


> I see a VERY strange phenomenon here, people who would ordinarily be very logical, hang on to the story about hijacked airliners being used as weapons, when in fact the evidence for said assumption is so VERY thin.
> 
> and its like, TABOO to question the official story?  what?



yep.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 9, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> so if you are truly tired of it, don't post, allow somebody else to get into the discussion.  The problem here is that some people seek to negate evidence of anything that challenges the 19 radical hijackers story.
> 
> Please can we have some real discussion of the evidence, or will this thread degenerate into insults & B.S.?


anybody who wishes to join in is welcome ...however that does not mean that that their truther bullshit will be treated with the same distain for specious reasoning, false assumptions and non credible "evidence" is .
just as yours is ....
what you want is some poor ignorant soul to agree with you..


----------



## daws101 (Feb 9, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> ...


way to dodge the subject!
so tell us, why have you disappeared so often..?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy" 
OK, was it really suicidal radical Arabs conspiring together.... 
or was it some other entity(s) conspiring to commit fraud on a huge scale?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 11, 2015)

daws101 said:


> way to dodge the subject!
> so tell us, why have you disappeared so often..?



Yeah, because _obviously_, at least where stalker-types like you are concerned, "the subject(s)" of any and all threads are the posting activities of your chosen prey.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy"
> OK, was it really suicidal radical Arabs conspiring together....
> or was it some other entity(s) conspiring to commit fraud on a huge scale?


lot of credible evidence for the first.
jack shit for the second....any questions?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > way to dodge the subject!
> ...


another non answer..


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy"
> OK, was it really suicidal radical Arabs conspiring together....
> or was it some other entity(s) conspiring to commit fraud on a huge scale?


 
The number of people involved would have been huge and if it was a huge scale fraud then those who did it were extremely stupid. I mean, they could have destroyed those buildings without the airplanes by using bombs and then blamed it on al Qaeda. Anyway, al-Qaeda thinks the 9/11 CTs are "ridiculous":

Al-Qaida has sent a message to the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking him to stop spreading conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

Iranian media on Wednesday reported quotes from what appears to be an article published in the latest issue of the al-Qaida English language magazine, Inspire, which described Ahmadinejad's remarks over the 11 September attacks as "ridiculous".

In his UN general assembly speech last week, Ahmadinejad cast doubt over the official version of the 2001 attacks.

"The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al-Qaida was behind 9/11 but rather, the US government," the article said, according to Iranian media. "So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...64GwBA&usg=AFQjCNE9M6gK3m43-bLw37k_zDhxQLRpMw


----------



## daws101 (Feb 11, 2015)

*All the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...*







-*The Bush Administration*, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.

-*The NYC Fire fighters* who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and DVD sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...

Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.

-*The courts* for imposing a gag order [SEE above]

-*The NYC Police department* who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...

-*The NYC port Authority* who lost personnel. Motive?

-*All the people in the Pentagon* who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...

-*The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11* who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]

-*The media * (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...

-*The photographers* from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.

-*Popular Mechanics* who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

-*PBS Nova* since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-*Everyone in the NIST*  who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.

-*NY Governor Pataki *  because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.

-*The NY city scrap yards *because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.

-*EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD*  who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?

*-Structure Magazine* who published a report saying the collapse of WTC 7 may have been due to one column failing.

-*The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down.* (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...

-*The CIA-The FBI

-FEMA

-The American Society of  Civil Engineers *who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible*.

-NORAD

-The FAA *who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.*

 -The Silverstein Group *who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.

*-Silverstein's  Insurance Company *who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.*

 -American Airlines *(Pentagon)*

 -United Airlines *(Pentagon)*

 -Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport *for losing the planes* -Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology

 -Installers of the remote control devices in the planes  (Pentagon)

 -Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)

-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.

 -Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings

 -People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover

-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)

 -Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)

 -People who detonated the buildings" 

-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.

Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...

Update:

A common excuse for no one coming out who was part of this so called  9/11 conspiracy is they fear death. If you analyze the argument carefully you realize they are debunking themselves. Why would even people in the military be more fearful of exposing this than the common conspiracy theorists behind a computer monitor? Either they don't believe what they're saying or they actually think they are more fearless than the thousands of others who would have had to be "in on it". As if people in the CIA or FBI couldn't figure out how to get the message out if they wanted to without exposing who they are. People, dates, places, memos and other evidence could easily be disseminated to the public without exposing who they are. The only reason they claim the people are paralyzed with fear is because they have too in order for the conspiracy story to work. 


Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Massive Conspiracy
*


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

add to your list of co-conspirators YOU personally 
because you refuse to see the evidence that is right in front of your face,
the problem is one of psychological warfare.


----------



## Blakeblaker4 (Feb 11, 2015)

Hi, i'm currently in a conspiracy theory class and the theory i chose is 9/11. I was first wondering what your thoughts on the matter is and what you think happened. Secondly I was wondering if you could be nice enough to link where you are finding your information on the topic, so that i can go in and continue my own research.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

Blakeblaker4 said:


> Hi, i'm currently in a conspiracy theory class and the theory i chose is 9/11. I was first wondering what your thoughts on the matter is and what you think happened. Secondly I was wondering if you could be nice enough to link where you are finding your information on the topic, so that i can go in and continue my own research.



Here is my take on the subject:
the info available from the "newsreels" of the day
that is the Evan Fairbanks Video ( and others that actually show the south wall of the south tower ) Note that the airliner penetrates as if the wall were made of cardboard.

Also the "newsreel" of WTC7 collapsing in a manner that even the news commentators described as being just like when you see a building destroyed intentionally.

Note also the "FLT77" crashing into the PENTAGON is a total farce, given the angle that the airliner was alleged to have struck the building, and the lack of wreckage outside the Pentagon, this one is so totally obvious as to be an insult to all thinking beings.


----------



## Blakeblaker4 (Feb 11, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Blakeblaker4 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, i'm currently in a conspiracy theory class and the theory i chose is 9/11. I was first wondering what your thoughts on the matter is and what you think happened. Secondly I was wondering if you could be nice enough to link where you are finding your information on the topic, so that i can go in and continue my own research.
> ...


So you defiantly think that someones behind something but who? Do you think it was the government? Or was someone else behind the scenes to make a pretty hefty cash out? Then if it was planned why did they plan it to get more control over us via airports bugging phones etc. or was it to ignite the war over in Iraq because they knew how americans would react?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 11, 2015)

Blakeblaker4 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Blakeblaker4 said:
> ...



We really need to look at this in a compartmentalized way.
There is the Physical evidence compartment,
and then there is the search for suspects compartment
and then there is the why was it done compartment

ALL of these bits can, and indeed must be considered independent of all the others to avoid confusion.  I consider the physical evidence compartment first & foremost and when considering the facts of the physical actions, as it only serves to create unnecessary noise, that is to speculate on who may have done it and why.  Can you focus on the physical aspect of the events?  This is were the real meat of the matter can be had with what is available right now.

BTW: how much looking into this have you already done,  I notice by your profile, you would have been 5 years old at the time, so you probably do not have memories of actually watching the news and parsing out what you saw.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > way to dodge the subject!
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

Blakeblaker4 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Blakeblaker4 said:
> ...



BOTH.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy"
> OK, was it really suicidal radical Arabs conspiring together....
> That there WOULD be a  conspiracy THEORY.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy"
> ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I notice that the title of this thread is "9/11 conspiracy"
> OK, was it really suicidal radical Arabs conspiring together....
> 
> that there WOULD be a conspiracy THEORY.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Feb 13, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> add to your list of co-conspirators YOU personally
> because you refuse to see the evidence that is right in front of your face,
> the problem is one of psychological warfare.



yep,this paid shill is doing what his handlers instruct him to do,refuse to look at the evidence and facts.lol


----------



## daws101 (Feb 18, 2015)

handjob slipped his restraints again....


----------



## Blakeblaker4 (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Blakeblaker4 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...





n0spam4me said:


> Blakeblaker4 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...



I've looked into it because of the class i'm in and in high school I did a powerpoint over it for history, but you are right i was five years old i don't have a lot of seeing it happen memories I only remember the little things like my parents crying and seeing the smoke on my television. But as far as watching it with my own eyes and getting thoughts on the situation right when it happened no i didn't because i was too young.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2015)

Blakeblaker4 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Blakeblaker4 said:
> ...



A cottage industry (selling DVDs and t-shirts) grew up based on the 9/11 attack known as the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. It was fueled by ambitious but often unscrupulous hucksters who used social media to prey, much as ISIS does today, on impressionable young minds. Most of those young minds grew up and escaped the clutches of the hucksters but a few, intoxicated by the sense of "power" and "belonging" their involvement gave them, remain frozen in the headlights. It is best to view that movement and the damage it caused both from the inside - any number of 9/11 CT websites remain - and the outside, where 9/11 CT debunking websites and the testimonies of those who escaped are readily available.

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

The fact that anybody may be making a buck from selling the DVD's & T Shirts is offered up as a reason why 9/11 was the product of 19 suicidal Arabs hijacking airliners ( etc.... ) PLEASE do examine the evidence here.
The fact that any given "truther" web-page may or may not be run by crooks, is NOT proof of anything.  The evidence in the physics alleged to have happened at the time is compelling, the whole 19 suicidal Arabs story is bogus.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> The fact that anybody may be making a buck from selling the DVD's & T Shirts is offered up as a reason why 9/11 was the product of 19 suicidal Arabs hijacking airliners ( etc.... ) PLEASE do examine the evidence here.
> The fact that any given "truther" web-page may or may not be run by crooks, is NOT proof of anything.  The evidence in the physics alleged to have happened at the time is compelling, the whole 19 suicidal Arabs story is bogus.



Like many here I have examined the "Truther" evidence and find it not only specious but also that your multiple and conveniently lengthy disappearances when your pseudoscience was challenged by Gamelon to be most revealing. You are a coward and a fraud, Spammy and those are worms you can never put back in their can.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that anybody may be making a buck from selling the DVD's & T Shirts is offered up as a reason why 9/11 was the product of 19 suicidal Arabs hijacking airliners ( etc.... ) PLEASE do examine the evidence here.
> ...



By YOUR definition I may be a fraud, HOWEVER, for the individual reader of this forum, I simply ask that you take a look at the Evan Fairbanks video ( + the others that actually show the south wall of the south tower ) and THINK, what should an aluminum airliner do upon meeting resistance? and people argue that the wall of the WTC tower(s) offered up virtually no resistance? 

Arguments about WHO may have actually done it, and exactly how it was done are futile until we can reach agreement about the actual events as documented on video.  The virtual disappearance of 4 airliners is NOT trivial.  and arguments like "oh but the airliners were going SOOO fast" do NOT help to define anything.

This is totally about WAR, and war is about winning hearts & minds.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> By YOUR definition I may be a fraud, HOWEVER, for the individual reader of this forum, I simply ask that you take a look at the Evan Fairbanks video...



Ah .. the ever-lame "I'm just asking questions" defense. You seem to forget that when your pseudoscience was challenged by Gamelon you _twice_ took sudden, lengthy vacations from this board. Like most "Truthers" you aren't interested in truth, Spammy, and anyone who looks back into these threads will learn that quickly



n0spam4me said:


> ...This is totally about WAR, and war is about winning hearts & minds.



Indeed it is and your actions are akin to those of a child-molester, offering candy to impressionable young minds because you were so enticed (and molested). Many here shine the light on cockroaches like you and when Gamelon's light hit you, you scattered. That is an inconvenient truth you can't escape and of which all newbies need to made aware.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 19, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


ah what do you call it when one fraud recommends a fraudulent and *fictitious product?*


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 19, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...



How about the people recommending the NIST report(s) ( etc..... ) 

I am not here to even attempt to satisfy those who are so immersed in the official story that no amount of logic & truth will sway them from their path.

Have a nice day

ya'll........


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


since you possess neither you are talking out your ass as usual....


----------



## deep_space (Feb 21, 2015)

I see the "loyal opposition" chooses insult & abuse over fact & logic.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

deep_space said:


> I see the "loyal opposition" chooses insult & abuse over fact & logic.


as I stated before you ass hats  possess neither.
your arguments are specious and based on a false premise.
meaning no logic or facts are contained in them.
in essence you are making  a myth ,as with any myth anything no matter how far outside logic, reason, science and probability is possible.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 21, 2015)

Can I add that this is all buls*t and the twin towers were  brought down by islamic  weirdo's? The  same ones that behead people or burn them to death, islam does  that ya know, from time to time. Ever notice it's mulims suicide bombers this, islamic terrorist blowing up THAT. Ever notice that?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Can I add that this is all buls*t and the twin towers were  brought down by islamic  weirdo's? The  same ones that behead people or burn them to death, islam does  that ya know, from time to time. Ever notice it's mulims suicide bombers this, islamic terrorist blowing up THAT. Ever notice that?



Did those Islamist use black magic?, exactly by what means did they cause the complete & total destruction of WTC1, 2, & 7 ?  

Why is it that 4 airliners virtually disappeared?

Also it was mentioned in a previous post about how the WTC skyscraper wall was "mostly glass" and I have the facts of the matter, that is the steel accounted for more than 2/3 of the wall area,  the WTC tower blue prints are available on-line, look it up.  

In the course of the discussion the allegation that the jet fuel fire would have been sufficient to soften steel so as to cause the collapse event, however I presented evidence to the contrary in the form of a scientific analysis of the BTU/gallon of fuel available and the temperature rise possible with a given amount of fuel.

In short the side promoting the 19 radical hijackers story, lacks foundation in physics and fundamental info about the towers & properties of materials.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Did those Islamist use black magic?, exactly by what means did they cause the complete & total destruction of WTC1, 2, & 7 ?
> 
> Why is it that 4 airliners virtually disappeared?
> 
> ...



All you have proven in your time here is your eagerness to blithely ignore the fact that your pseudoscience has been thoroughly debunked (as proven by your sudden, lengthy disappearances when it is challenged by Gamelon). You are a fraud, Spammy, trolling for weak-minded children and what's more you know it.
T-shirts and DVDs for everyone!

"My problem, and your problem as well, is that we have been blatantly misled by people who are only interested in selling dvds and t-shirts. This is supposed to be a truth movement. At this point, Alex Jones could pull every smoking gun out of [his] ass that proves without question that 9/11 was an inside job, but it will never excuse the fact that he had [to] lie so blatantly. Fuck you, fuck avery & bermas, fuck 9/11 mysteries, and fuck every true believer who goes out there and tells people that they've "done their research." - Confessions of an Ex-Truther Letter of Resignation Scroll Down for Newer Posts


----------



## MaryL (Feb 21, 2015)

Oh come now, not this shit again. I propose we rebuild the entire world trade center facility and yet again crash a couple of fully laden  passenger planes into them. What  think  you the result would be, again?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

Long before there were ever any T shirt vendors ( etc.... ) 
I saw the live video of the twin towers collapsing and then WTC7 also collapsing and I knew right then & there this was a FRAUD.  Skyscrapers simply do not do as was shown in the newsreels without serious help from engineered demolition.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Oh come now, not this shit again. I propose we rebuild the entire world trade center facility and yet again crash a couple of fully laden  passenger planes into them. What  think  you the result would be, again?



I would bet my life that if an accurate replica of the WTC towers could be produced and then airliners crashed into them, the result would NOT be the penetration as alleged for "FLT11" & "FLT175" and there would NOT be complete & total destruction of the towers.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

MaryL said:


> Oh come now, not this shit again. I propose we rebuild the entire world trade center facility and yet again crash a couple of fully laden  passenger planes into them. What  think  you the result would be, again?


constant repetition of a false perception is an indicator of mental illness.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

again, NOBODY has so much as commented on the fact that I provided scientific rebuttal to:
> the burning jet fuel argument
> saying the WTC wall was mostly glass 

I wonder why?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Long before there were ever any T shirt vendors ( etc.... )
> I saw the live video of the twin towers collapsing and then WTC7 also collapsing and I knew right then & there this was a FRAUD.  Skyscrapers simply do not do as was shown in the newsreels without serious help from engineered demolition.


bullshit! how could you KNOW. ?
making absurd and specious statements is smoking gun proof of your lunacy?
news reels.....no longer exist they when out with spats.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Oh come now, not this shit again. I propose we rebuild the entire world trade center facility and yet again crash a couple of fully laden  passenger planes into them. What  think  you the result would be, again?
> ...


I wish 9/11 never happened for such speculation as this. islam crashed those planes,  that is what conformity is all about. Can I add, fuck islam?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> again, NOBODY has so much as commented on the fact that I provided scientific rebuttal to:
> > the burning jet fuel argument
> > saying the WTC wall was mostly glass
> 
> I wonder why?


no you didn't it was pseudoscience .
pseudoscience
[ ˌso͞odōˈsīəns ]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN
noun: *pseudoscience* · plural noun: *pseudosciences* · noun: *pseudo-science* · plural noun: *pseudo-sciences* · noun: *pseudo-science* · plural noun: *pseudo-sciences*


a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> again, NOBODY has so much as commented on the fact that I provided scientific rebuttal to:
> > the burning jet fuel argument
> > saying the WTC wall was mostly glass
> 
> I wonder why?


 
You are _*lying*_, Princess. The moment Gamelon deigned to play "Physicist" with you, you disappeared _*for weeks*_ ... _*twice*_.
As such you no longer have the creds to play that little game.


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > again, NOBODY has so much as commented on the fact that I provided scientific rebuttal to:
> ...




Got a new name for it here: SPAMMYscience.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

Did anybody actually bother to look at the video I posted?
Did anybody actually consider the BTU/gallon of fuel available?
Did anybody actually consider that the argument "the tower wall was mostly glass" was totally bogus given the proof available from the blueprints.

The argument is stated "Islam destroyed the towers" 
OK, by what means were the towers destroyed?  The jet fuel has been shown to have had insufficient energy to cause the collapse, so what did cause the complete & total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

OK, so NOBODY is actually going to take the time to look up how many BTU/gallon of jet fuel is available, NOBODY is going to look up the fact that the wall(s) of the WTC towers were composed of more than 2/3 steel by area.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Did anybody actually bother to look at the video I posted?
> Did anybody actually consider the BTU/gallon of fuel available?
> Did anybody actually consider that the argument "the tower wall was mostly glass" was totally bogus given the proof available from the blueprints.
> 
> ...


asked answered and debunked ...next..


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> OK, so NOBODY is actually going to take the time to look up how many BTU/gallon of jet fuel is available, NOBODY is going to look up the fact that the wall(s) of the WTC towers were composed of more than 2/3 steel by area.


 
Now you got it, Spammy. You blew whatever real scientific creds you had when you _*twice*_ ran away from Gamelon and hid. Now you get no satisfaction 'cause you got nutin'. Nobody wants to play "Spammyscience" with you, Princess.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

I think a spammy tantrum is a brewin'!
god will be mentioned shortly....


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 21, 2015)

daws101 said:


> I think a spammy tantrum is a brewin'! god will be mentioned shortly....


 
I'm putting on my Hazmat suit as we speak.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > I think a spammy tantrum is a brewin'! god will be mentioned shortly....
> ...


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

apparently, personal attack suffices as rebuttal in some circles.

have fun kiddies


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> apparently, personal attack suffices as rebuttal in some circles.
> 
> have fun kiddies


 spammy pulls up his skirt and runs away again!


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

I'm here and willing to discuss the issues, its the opposition that has degenerated into personal attack as a substitute for actual debate.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> I'm here and willing to discuss the issues, its the opposition that has degenerated into personal attack as a substitute for actual debate.


haven't you left yet?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

For the casual lurker
please note that personal attack is no substitute for debate.

I have provided facts & data.

If you want to discuss the facts, Please, lets get on with it,
but personal attack serves no purpose at all here.

A bit of additional data on this subject:
WTC7 s Free Fall Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## daws101 (Feb 21, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> For the casual lurker
> please note that personal attack is no substitute for debate.
> 
> I have provided facts & data.
> ...


to all sane readers the facts and data spammy say he's provided are the same debunked nonsense in the link he's posted.....


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 21, 2015)

> debunked nonsense



OK, so you can point to a post where somebody presents facts in rebuttal to what I assert?  Please bring it.....


----------



## daws101 (Feb 23, 2015)

pammy's favorite proclamation "there were no planes used on 911..."

911 aircraft debris from flight 11 175 - Bing Images


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 23, 2015)

The link in post # 655 points to a search that contains an assortment of pictures, some from the alleged "FLT77" crash, & some from events that were not even 9/11/2001.  The real problem here is the fact, and it is a fact, that there isn't any proper documentation for any of the 4 alleged airliner crashes, has any bit been forensically identified and this data published?

So far, any attempt to show that there were actual airliners used in the attack, has been an exercise in futility. there is insufficient evidence to confirm any of the alleged airliners.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 24, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> The link in post # 655 points to a search that contains an assortment of pictures, some from the alleged "FLT77" crash, & some from events that were not even 9/11/2001.  The real problem here is the fact, and it is a fact, that there isn't any proper documentation for any of the 4 alleged airliner crashes, has any bit been forensically identified and this data published?
> 
> So far, any attempt to show that there were actual airliners used in the attack, has been an exercise in futility. there is insufficient evidence to confirm any of the alleged airliners.


bullshit spammy! there are enough photos flight 77 and all the others to prove beyond doubt (for any sane person ) that the chrashes happened.'
on the other hand,  you are trying to prove a negative .
what that means is you have no evidence proving it did not happen.   

*Cockpit recorders*
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the cockpit voice recorders (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR), or "black boxes", from Flights 11 and 175 were not recovered from the remains of the WTC attack; however, two men, Michael Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi, who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, said in the book _Behind-The-Scenes: Ground Zero_[177] that they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners:[178][179]

At one point, I was assigned to take Federal Agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes. We were getting ready to go out. My ATV was parked at the top of the stairs at the Brooks Brothers entrance area. We loaded up about a million dollars worth of equipment and strapped it into the ATV. There were a total of four black boxes. We found three.[180]




The cockpit voice recorder from Flight 77 was heavily damaged from the impact and resulting fire.
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, both black boxes from Flight 77 and both black boxes from Flight 93 were recovered. However, the CVR from Flight 77 was said to be too damaged to yield any data. On April 18, 2002, the FBI allowed the families of victims from Flight 93 to listen to the voice recordings.[181] In April 2006, a transcript of the CVR was released as part of the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.[182]

9 11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101 (Feb 24, 2015)

to prove you are, as always, talking out your ass....flight 77 crash photos - Bing Images


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 25, 2015)

daws101 said:


> to prove you are, as always, talking out your ass....flight 77 crash photos - Bing Images



That link is yet another internet search engine collection of pix and as such it includes pictures that have nothing at all to do with "FLT77".  Additionally mere pictures do NOT constitute DOCUMENTATION.  How is it known that any of the bits in the pictures are actually fragments of "FLT77"?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 25, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > to prove you are, as always, talking out your ass....flight 77 crash photos - Bing Images
> ...


more BullShit rationalizing ...


*Documentation* is a set of documents provided on paper, or online, or on digital or analog media, such as audio tape or CDs. Example are user guides, white papers, on-line help, quick-reference guides. It is becoming less common to see paper (hard-copy) documentation. Documentation is distributed via websites, software products, and other on-line applications.

Professionals educated in this field are termed documentalists. This field changed its name to information science in 1968, but some uses of the term documentation still exists and there have been efforts to reintroduce the term documentation as a field of study.



*Contents*
 [hide] 

1 Principles for producing documentation
1.1 Guidelines
1.2 Procedures and techniques

2 Producing documentation
2.1 Specializing documentation
2.2 Indexing

3 Documentation in computer science
3.1 Tools for documenting software

4 Documentation in criminal justice
5 Notes
6 See also
7 External links


*Principles for producing documentation[edit]*
While associated ISO standards are not easily available publicly, a guide from other sources for this topic may serve the purpose [1], [2],.[3] David Berger has provided several principles of document writing, regarding the terms used, procedure numbering and even lengths of sentences, etc.[4]

*Guidelines[edit]*
The following is a list of guides dealing with each specific field and type:


documentation in health care [5]
thesis writing [6], [7], [8]
Further information: Dissertation
papers for academic journal publishing (i.e. Journal of Food Science [9] and Analytical Chemistry [10])
*Procedures and techniques[edit]*
The procedures of documentation vary from one sector, or one type, to another. In general, these may involve document drafting, formatting, submitting, reviewing, approving, distributing, repositing and tracking, etc., and are convened by associated SOPs in a regulatory industry [11], [12], [13],.[14]

*Producing documentation[edit]*
Technical writers and corporate communicators are professionals whose field and work is documentation. Ideally, technical writers have a background in both the subject matter and also in writing and managing content (information architecture). Technical writers more commonly collaborate with subject matter experts (SMEs), such as engineers, medical professionals, or other types of clients to define and then create content (documentation) that meets the user's needs. Corporate communications includes other types of written documentation that is required for most companies.

*Specializing documentation[edit]*

Marketing Communications (MarCom): MarCom writers endeavor to convey the company's value proposition through a variety of print, electronic, and social media. This area of corporate writing is often engaged in responding to proposals.
Technical Communication (TechCom): Technical writers document a company's project or service. Technical publication include user guides, installation manuals, and troubleshooting/repair/replace procedures.
Legal Writing: This type of documentation is often prepared by attorneys or paralegals who could be in private practice or retained as corporate council.
Compliance documentation: This type of documentation codifies Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), for any regulatory compliance needs, as for safety approval, taxation, financing, technical approval, etc.
*Indexing[edit]*

Index (database)


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 25, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no documentation that one so wedded to his "Truther" Movement would accept as trumping his "Truther" lunacy. Spammy strikes me as one who just can't let go of his years of "research" as to do so would be an admission of his wasted "life." He, like so many of what's left of his moribund movement, just can't face that truth and in all honesty I'm not certain many of us could.


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 25, 2015)

Let me express this a different way .... by want means was it verified that any of the alleged wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites was actually from the alleged airliner that was said to have crashed there?


----------



## daws101 (Feb 25, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Let me express this a different way .... by want means was it verified that any of the alleged wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites was actually from the alleged airliner that was said to have crashed there?


asked and answered..


----------



## Blakeblaker4 (Feb 27, 2015)

So what's your point behind the "Truth" movement are you just bringing it up to show me another point of view on the subject or is there more to the story here?


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 27, 2015)

daws101 said:


> n0spam4me said:
> 
> 
> > Let me express this a different way .... by want means was it verified that any of the alleged wreckage at any of the 4 crash sites was actually from the alleged airliner that was said to have crashed there?
> ...





Blakeblaker4 said:


> So what's your point behind the "Truth" movement are you just bringing it up to show me another point of view on the subject or is there more to the story here?



Here is the point, the fact that the whole world has been lied to by the perpetrator(s) of the false flag attack and we have huge new bureaucracy in the form of DHS & TSA ( etc.... ) lets get real here, TRUTH ends wars of aggression, TRUTH ends the unconstitutional DHS ( etc.... ) There are HUGE problems with the system right now and people need to wake up to the fact that the mainstream media functions as a propaganda machine, and the rank&file voter/taxpayer is being abused.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 27, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > n0spam4me said:
> ...


"just the facts mam!"


----------



## n0spam4me (Feb 28, 2015)

and without citing a specific post or article, 
I'm told "asked and answered"  Not so fast,
Some people either flunked Science 101,
or simply do not want to see the truth,
that is the truth that the events of 9/11/2001
violate the laws of physics if the official explanation 
is to be accepted.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> and without citing a specific post or article,
> I'm told "asked and answered"  Not so fast,
> Some people either flunked Science 101,
> or simply do not want to see the truth,
> ...


the laws of physics were in no way violated on 911.
no specific post or article needs to be cited again as they all have used and abused ad infinitum.
"Ad Infinitum
Describing anything that continues without limit. For example, if a government continually prints money, the money supply may increase ad infinitum."


----------



## Capstone (Feb 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> the laws of physics were in no way violated on 911. ...



Couldn't agree more! 

That's exactly why many well-informed people have come to the realization that the official explanation for Building 7's "collapse" is a braided, corn-filled, foot-long steamer.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > the laws of physics were in no way violated on 911. ...
> ...


only in your shared hallucination....
in reality the twoofer version of events is the largest batch of torpedo soup ever conceived...
is this becoming a battle of analogies....?


----------



## Capstone (Feb 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> only in your shared hallucination....



Yeah, and to think, it's all been based on the silly 17th century hallucinations of Isaac Newton. 



			
				daws101 said:
			
		

> ...in reality the twoofer version of events is the largest batch of torpedo soup ever conceived...
> is this becoming a battle of analogies....?



Please. All NEOCT conspiracy nuts have committed themselves to the dumpatarium by default.


----------



## daws101 (Feb 28, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > only in your shared hallucination....
> ...


"]only in your shared hallucination


----------



## deep_space (Feb 28, 2015)

> That's exactly why many well-informed people have come to the realization that the official explanation for Building 7's "collapse" is a braided, corn-filled, foot-long steamer.



couldn't agree more


----------



## Blakeblaker4 (Mar 2, 2015)

I just wanted to get on here and say thank you to everyone who helped me in finding information and replying to my questions about 9/11. Because of this i know have enough information and replies to complete my project for my class. So once again thank you for answering my questions I know they might have been dumb and long but thank you for taking your time to answer them.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

Blakeblaker4 said:


> I just wanted to get on here and say thank you to everyone who helped me in finding information and replying to my questions about 9/11. Because of this i know have enough information and replies to complete my project for my class. So once again thank you for answering my questions I know they might have been dumb and long but thank you for taking your time to answer them.



you only need to watch these two videos below  to see the overwhelming proof that it was a joint CIA/mossad operation.

Nobody at ANY message board has ever been able to debunk these videos here.they wont attempt to do so,just watch them.they will just sling childish insults like the trolls they are  knowing they are cornered and cant refute the facts in them.

since you are sincere and really interested in the truth,if you just take a couple hours out of your time to watch them one day,and then  a couple hours another day for the second one,you'll see for yourself it was a joint CIA/mossad operation.



also after watching those two videos,if you REALLY want to get into it even deeper,i would suggest reading this book sometime. this book also has evidence in it nobody has ever been able to debunk.

Debunking 9 11 Debunking An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory David Ray Griffin 9781566566865 Amazon.com Books

matter of fact the author has challenged congress to debate him out in the open and try to refute his facts,they wont because they know they cant.

there will never be an honest investigation into this because both parties are corrupt and that's because in reality,its really a ONE PARTY SYSTEM designed to look like two so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected.they are like pro wresters,inside the ring they pretend to hate each other but outside of it,they are buddie buddies.same with the two parties

why do you you think we have never had an honest investigation into the JFK assassination,our last REAL president who served the people instead of the bankers which is why the CIA killed him?

that the best research into it has been done by independent reseachers? same thing. the same will happen for 9/11 that has happened with the JFK assassination where in both cases,the real criminals got away with murder.

oh and before you watch those two videos and read that book,here.start it off by watching this short humourous five minute video.it pretty much proves how absurd and ridiculous the official version is.lol


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > only in your shared hallucination....
> ...


that's agent dawgshits/say its logic for ya.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

n0spam4me said:


> Did anybody actually bother to look at the video I posted?
> Did anybody actually consider the BTU/gallon of fuel available?
> Did anybody actually consider that the argument "the tower wall was mostly glass" was totally bogus given the proof available from the blueprints.
> 
> ...


you kidding? paid shills for the government which we have so many on this message board,NEVER bother to watch videos.lol

that's what their handlers instruct them to do.


perfect example of a paid shill shooting the messenger without trying to counter facts below.

QUOTE="teddyearp, post: 9992476, member: 49464"]Doesn't belong here.  Soon it will be where the other looney tunes belong.  Sunni Man, Penelope, Monti, and the others unfortunately will still be hanging around here sometimes though . . . . LOL.[/QUOTE]


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

MisterBeale said:


> What do I think?  I think this is old news and that nobody really cares anymore. . . .  They have been celebrating this in Israel every Purim for years.  It's not like it's a secret.
> 
> Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
> PressTV - Israel celebrates successful 9 11 operation on Purim holiday
> ...




yep that's just what I got done posting.that says it all right there,a picture speaks a thousand words.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Doesn't belong here.  Soon it will be where the other looney tunes belong.  Sunni Man, Penelope, Monti, and the others unfortunately will still be hanging around here sometimes though . . . . LOL.





Jackinthebox said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Jackinthebox said:
> ...




yep,dawgshit here was dancing and celebrating with his Israel buddies when the towers were hit no doubt.


----------



## teddyearp (Mar 2, 2015)

Must have been really bored to quote a post of mine made almost five months ago. . . . and it was made when this thread was first started in the I/P section.


----------



## daws101 (Mar 2, 2015)

teddyearp said:


> Must have been really bored to quote a post of mine made almost five months ago. . . . and it was made when this thread was first started in the I/P section.


hanjob gets limited computer time at the facility where he's confined...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Mar 2, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## deep_space (Mar 7, 2015)

wow, the conspiracy discussion just nose dived into a deep pit of irrelevant sludge.
Silly me, I though were  were here to discuss the facts about 9/11?


----------



## Abishai100 (Mar 11, 2015)

*The Rise of the Agro-Daredevil*


Hollywood (USA) released the film "Charlie Wilson's War" (2007) which looked at the international political intrigue surrounding talks and conflicts between America, Afghanistani rebels, and the Soviet Union.

Hollywood (USA) released the film "Munich" (2005) which looked at the terrorist attack on 1972 Summer Olympics Israeli athletes by the PLO and how Israeli counter-agents planned a response.

The media has been paying a great deal of special attention to the intricate meanderings of political decision-making and how it informs society and culture in our age of globalization (i.e., eTrade).

When the terrorists of the Taliban attacked the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, people took notice of a rising international dissatisfaction with America's dominance over free market catalyzed networking.

There were strange reports on 9/11 that various mobile phones in the USA were losing signals, which raised all kind of street-talk about the NSA creating electronic surveillance networks which were being infiltrated and undermined by foreign radicals intent on destabilizing 'pedestrianism economics.'

It seems that reports of modern-day airline narcotics rings and post-USSR Moscow crime syndicates are creating definitive underworld economics systems that reveal a new age 'intention' to foster 'dream-warrior daredevils.'  Even Hollywood (USA) makes movies about Internet hackers...

This is why it is shockingly 'sane' to connect Taliban 9/11 talk to recent talk surrounding ISIS.  Could the Taliban be working with ISIS and/or could their activities be connected through plans/blueprints created decades ago?

There is a theory that this new brand of 'daredevil' is motivated to attack assumptions about agro-economics stabilization in our age of virtual networking (i.e., Netgrocer, Amazon.com, etc.).

Can American goods-distribution companies such as Green Giant restore general 'mercantilism optimism?'






Munich film - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 14, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
> "There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?



How did the NIST produce a 10,000 page report without specifying how much concrete was in the towers?  But they provided that data for the steel.  Didn't the designers have to know how much concrete was where to figure out how much steel to put where?

The 9/11 Affair is a scientific farce that can never go away.  The physics of collapse should have been explained in 2002.

In 1940 the University of Washington only took 4 months to produce a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel that oscillated like the real bridge in the wind.  So no matter what the truth of 9/11 is, why don't we have a model that can duplicate the collapse?

psik


----------



## daws101 (Apr 15, 2015)

ah... nostalgia ...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 15, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Apr 15, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
> ...



 sayit/aka dawgshit troll here cant get around bld 7.the crux of the 9/11 coverup.


----------



## daws101 (Apr 15, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


right ......lol! bld 7 was an empty barn that burned down ...


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 1, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
> "There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to 'hey, we're just asking questions' if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?



It is not a matter of merely questioning the NIST report.  It is only a matter of pointing out its absurdity that dummies who accept it ignore.

The NIST report does not explain the collapses.  It simply CLAIMS that they were inevitable.

In three places they admit that they need to know the distribution of weight of the tower to analyse the movement due to the impact.  But then they do not provide the data.  The do not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers but they do it for the steel in three places.

They admit that the top of the south tower tilted 20 to 25 degrees but then say nothing about the center of mass, even though the core which they admit supported 53% of the weight was narrower than the whole building.  Where was the center of mass relative to the core and why didn't the top fall down the side of the south tower?  It is impossible to accurately compute the Potential Energy accurately without knowing the steel and concrete distributions.  I pointed that out years ago in such a way that middle school children should be able to understand it.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Offer to the Truth Movement Let s Settle It

I do not give a damn about any cover ups or conspiracies.  It is a physics problem.  So no matter what it should have been solved in 2002.

psik


----------



## SAYIT (May 1, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
> ...



Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets loaded with jet fuel at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
You have a good time!


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 2, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets* loaded with jet fuel* at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
> You have a good time!



What does "loaded" mean?

The fuel capacity was 24.000 gallons but the NIST says there was 10,000 gallons on the plane.

We know the buildings came down.  We don't know airliner impacts and the resulting fires could cause it.

The absurd thing about 9/11 is that it is not nearly complicated enough to demand scientists but in almost 14 years the scientists have not mentioned the need for data on the distributions of steel and concrete or provided good information on the Potential Energy of the towers.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Offer to the Truth Movement Let s Settle It

So we get morons endlessly talking bullsh!t about a simple problem.

psik


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah ... a pseudoscientist! We know the Towers were hit by large passenger jets* loaded with jet fuel* at hundreds of MPH. We know the collapsing Towers hit WTC7. We saw the fires and the people jumping to their deaths. We know those buildings collapsed. The entire 9/11 CT Movement is just foil-hatted masturbation.
> ...



Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.


----------



## Hollie (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so you just question the official reports but have absolutely no interest in stacking those reports against any alternative scenarios. Well here's some 4-1-1 for you ... when compared to any of the dozens of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the NIST report is the only plausible explanation. I'll let 9/11 "Truth" UAlbany's co-founder, Mike Metzger, explain your CT M.O.:
> ...


You're mistaken to believe that practicing scientists/engineers are under any obligation to refute every conspiracy theory invented by conspiracy theory loons.


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.



So you do not comprehend the difference between Knowing and BELIEVING.

That is the trouble with the 9/11 Religion.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model to duplicate the oscillating behavior of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.  But now that we have all of these great computers we can't make a virtual or physical model of the north tower collapse in almost FOURTEEN YEARS!

It is called technological advance.

Quite ironic considering that the WTC was one of the first buildings to be designed with the help of computers.  

psik


----------



## daws101 (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.
> ...


I do it's obvious you and your anything but the facts minions do not.


----------



## SAYIT (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, but that's the thing ... we do know that the impact and resulting fires could cause the buildings to collapse (because it did) and as already mentioned, the entire 9/11 CT Movement was just foil-hatted masturbation.
> ...



The irony is thick but certainly you can't see it.
It's not the "9/11 religion" but rather the "9/11 CT religion" that has snagged you foil hatters. We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets. We know chaotic fires were set by the impact and jet fuel. We know lots of stuff burned and the Towers eventually collapsed. None of that is in question but some can't seem to understand the connection between those factors because they conflict with their CT religious beliefs.
Building a computer model of those buildings wasn't a problem ... determining precisely how the impact and ensuing fires brought them down was the tricky part.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 3, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.



If you know so much why don't you tell us how much the building deflected due to the impact?

psik


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.
> ...



WHY do you do it? these are paid shills sent here to troll the boards and waste your time and you keep feeding them.


----------



## Hollie (May 3, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > SAYIT said:
> ...


When you flail your Pom Poms, lift up your skirt a little.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (May 3, 2015)

two farts in a row from the agents trolls.


----------



## Hollie (May 3, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the agents trolls.


A perfect example of why the conspiracy theory loons aren't taken seriously.


----------



## daws101 (May 3, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.
> ...


another useless fact .


psikeyhackr said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> > We know those buildings were hit by large, fast-moving passenger jets.
> ...


Why impact would have the same effect as explosives.


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 3, 2015)

daws101 said:


> *another useless fact .*
> 
> Why impact would have the same effect as explosives.




That is the nature of believers in the 9/11 Religion.  Can't do the physics well enough to figure out what is relevant.

If it is useless then why did the NIST include a graph of the deflection and four minute oscillation after the impact?

You are free to explain how explosives could be applied to produce the effect and yet not be noticed as an explosion.

psik


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 3, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> WHY do you do it? these are paid shills sent here to troll the boards and waste your time and you keep feeding them.



Like the term "Inside Job" doesn't feed them.  The only evidence is physics.  Talking about "Inside Jobs" is bullshit!

psik


----------



## daws101 (May 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > *another useless fact .*
> ...


it's a false dilemma...
the deflection and oscillation are effect not CAUSE. NIST included all the info it had it's s.o.p.

oscillation
[ ˌäsəˈlāSHən ]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN
noun: *oscillation* · plural noun: *oscillations*

movement back and forth at a regular speed:
"the natural oscillation of a spring
in other words, if we are talking about seven or  1 and 2 they got their bell rung.
nothing nefarious about it.


----------



## psikeyhackr (May 4, 2015)

daws101 said:


> it's a false dilemma...
> the deflection and oscillation are effect not CAUSE. NIST included all the info it had it's s.o.p.



But did the NIST try to get all of the information it needed to analyse the problem?

In three places in the NIST report they admit that they needed the distribution of weight to analyse the effect of the impact.  But they never even specify the total amount of concrete but give that specification for the steel in three places.  So we do not have distribution of mass for steel and concrete to this day.

The NIST report is scientifically schizoid.  But considering that the Empire State Building was 70 years old on 9/11 and 50 skyscrapers over 1000 feet tall have been built around the world since 9/11 this should not be a difficult problem.

So no matter what the truth is it should have been resolved in 2002.

That is the problem of the 9/11 Affair.  Who actually did what and why is irrelevant. 

Physics is Forever!  But since 9/11 Physics is History!  

psik


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2015)

Hollie said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > WHY do you do it? these are paid shills sent here to troll the boards and waste your time and you keep feeding them.
> ...



Yeah ... wait ... no. That's something I don't wanna see.


----------



## daws101 (May 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > it's a false dilemma...
> ...


 you're talking a lot but not saying anything.


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> You are free to explain how explosives could be applied to produce the effect and yet not be noticed as an explosion.



Wait ... are you now suggesting that some nefarious cabal managed to prep those buildings for demo without anyone noticing, convince some Jihadists to slam a couple of passenger jets into them at high speed and then initiate a CD?


----------



## daws101 (May 4, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > You are free to explain how explosives could be applied to produce the effect and yet not be noticed as an explosion.
> ...


yes that and other fantasies...


----------



## SAYIT (May 4, 2015)

psikeyhackr said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



As if talking about any of the foil-hatted 9/11 "Truther" alternatives isn't BS.
Six really stupid 9 11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds


----------



## Abishai100 (Jul 16, 2015)

*Pedestrianism Plasticity*

During the Roman Empire, Arabs were involved in cooking up coordinated strikes that were deemed as acts of vagrant terror (this suggestion was linked to the story of Spartacus).

During the British Empire, once again, Arabia was involved in strikes against the colonial regime (this suggestion was linked to the story of T.E. Lawrence).

Now, in the time of the American Empire, we saw that on 9/11, Arabs (the Taliban) coordinated a devastating strike against the World Trade Center in New York City.  This time, the linked characters were President Bush and the unnamed 'civil servant' (the Wall Street stockbroker).

Why are Arabs so sensitive to the problems of empire?  It seems that 9/11 was certainly a signpost that modern era consumerism (i.e., global free market) has yielded various levels of discontentment and power games.

Was 9/11 the first signal that there is a modern empire economics related 'social customs' disease?

I think that the surprising antidote is populism dialogue.  Why not hoist the fictional American comic book superhero *Captain America* (Marvel Comics), a modern civilization symbol of pedestrianism festivity, as the valuable totem of 'negotiations narcotics?'





Captain America (Marvel Comics)


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

Abishai100 said:


> *Pedestrianism Plasticity*
> 
> During the Roman Empire, Arabs were involved in cooking up coordinated strikes that were deemed as acts of vagrant terror (this suggestion was linked to the story of Spartacus).
> 
> ...


 this moment of nonsense was brought to you by Xanax


----------



## irosie91 (Jul 16, 2015)

I am confused------what did arabs have to do with  SPARTACUS???
does Kirk Douglas know???


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

irosie91 said:


> I am confused------what did arabs have to do with  SPARTACUS???
> does Kirk Douglas know???


no, but Stanley Kubrick does....


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


Oddly that only happens when you post.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


like I said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^


More beans Mr.Handjob?


----------



## Penelope (Jul 16, 2015)

Israel and the jew and war lovers in our gov were also involved. Took years of planning from inside job. Simple. Got rid the asbestos in  twin towers, building # 7 was the main thing to destroy , and they got their war with Iraq. Anyone who does not realize this is blind, sorry but its the truth.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

Penelope said:


> Israel and the jew and war lovers in our gov were also involved. Took years of planning from inside job. Simple. Got rid the asbestos in  twin towers, building # 7 was the main thing to destroy , and they got their war with Iraq. Anyone who does not realize this is blind, sorry but its the truth.


Wake up Dorothy you are having that dream again!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

someone farted in here^


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

Penelope said:


> Israel and the jew and war lovers in our gov were also involved. Took years of planning from inside job. Simple. Got rid the asbestos in  twin towers, building # 7 was the main thing to destroy , and they got their war with Iraq. Anyone who does not realize this is blind, sorry but its the truth.



so very true.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 16, 2015)

9/11 inside job said:


> someone farted in here.^



That was neither funny nor poignant the first time you posted it and 15,199 times later it still is neither.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

SAYIT said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > someone farted in here.^
> ...


Handjob the limited vocabulary man.


----------



## SAYIT (Jul 16, 2015)

Penelope said:


> Israel and the jew and war lovers in our gov were also involved. Took years of planning from inside job. Simple. Got rid the asbestos in  twin towers, building # 7 was the main thing to destroy , and they got their war with Iraq. Anyone who does not realize this is blind, sorry but its the truth.



Of course, planting some evidence of WMDs in Iraq would have created the same result without the risk of really slick people like you figuring out it was all just a scam. Nice work!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2015)

someone farted in here.^


----------



## deep_space (Jul 16, 2015)

The Fake airliner hijackings had the benefit of being motivation for creating DHS & TSA, and getting the AMERICAN public to trade some freedom for an illusion of security.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 16, 2015)

deep_space said:


> The Fake airliner hijackings had the benefit of being motivation for creating DHS & TSA, and getting the AMERICAN public to trade some freedom for an illusion of security.


Any credeble evidence to support that bullshit? 
No none , nada, zip, jack shit
.


----------



## Capstone (Jul 17, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Handjob the limited vocabulary man.



This from the resident dispensary of misspelled one-liners and copy-&-paste jobs?! My, what super-de-duper _trenchant_ criticism, coming from such a highly "credeble" critic!


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Handjob the limited vocabulary man.
> ...


The spell Nazi ploy


----------



## Capstone (Jul 17, 2015)

daws101 said:


> The spell Nazi ploy



In light of your criticism of 911ij's "limited vocabulary", your affinity for "one-liners" is the most relevant issue here, Dumbass. 

The incessant errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar are just the icing and sprinkles on the cake.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 17, 2015)

Capstone said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > The spell Nazi ploy
> ...


Don't you just wish.


----------



## longknife (Sep 13, 2019)

A new one on me.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2019)

longknife said:


> View attachment 279143
> A new one on me.



another one of the coincidences the coincidence conspiracists always play dodgeball on.LOL


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Sep 14, 2019)

DGS49 said:


> There.  I said it.  "9/11 Conspiracy."
> 
> In writing those words I have unavoidably linked myself and this posting to people who fret about "Area 51," who wear aluminum foil hats to prevent the CIA from stealing their thoughts, and those who think Castro (or the CIA) killed JFK.
> 
> ...



WOW this doofus is obviously a hopeless case,the ONLY research he has ever done is read that fictional warren commission report.

the fact that he believes i magic bullets is proof how dense HE is.  


He is obviously unaware of the death bed confession of E Howard Hunt who after decades of denying he was in dallas that day,on his deathbed confession to his son that was videotaped and recorded that you can view on youtube,he confessed he was there that day. plus during the HSCA when it was winding down in the 70's,two CIA officers came forward and said WE DID IT,WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THIS INVESTIGATION? 

the government of course had no interest in the truth and since americans were no longer believing in the magic bullet theory and knew there was at least a second shooter,to satisfy them,they said the mob did it anc ould not locate the other shooter to put it on a NEW patsy. anything that led to the CIA,they ignored so they ignored that lead since it did not go along with the mob did it report they came up with.

man if this guy IS THAT dense all these years later on the CIA killing off kennedy, he is HOPELESS on 9/11 obviously.


----------

